The Ultimate Mother's Day Film!
-
MissMargoChanning — 6 years ago(May 13, 2019 09:27 PM)
I take it that you don't have the DVD then?
I agree about Commentaries. You get a few clinkers where all you get is the tecnical crap or it swings to the other side of the spectrum and you wind up with some actor mumbling on about every other thing they ever appeared in except the movie you are watching.
If you have a the 1990 movie/DVD Stephen King's IT, watch it with the comentary. The whole thing is great!
You asked a pretty question; I've given you the ugly answer.
Fasten Your Seatbelts….
It's Going To Be A Bumpy Night! -
Lilith — 6 years ago(May 13, 2019 09:59 PM)
For some really odd reason I watched the commentary with,….I keep thinking it was Dodgeball, but that doesn't sound right. I don't have the movie, it was just available at the time. And Ben Stiller was there and I keep thinking it was Vince Vaughn.
Vince did most of the commentary, and Ben showed up late, and just bitched about bad traffic or bad parking, and something about bringing food or whatever. It was the most annoying commentary I've ever sat through.
Normally I really enjoy them quite a bit. I don't mind the technical things, and I like to hear the director's commentary, and I like the ones with cast members (they're often so very different), but I love getting a little "behind the scenes" scoop!
I read Mommie Dearest several times over, and saw the movie several times over, and I've seen so many interviews that Christina gave with a great number of people (which is why I tend to believe her, and people like June Alyson came to her defense having witnessed Joan's cruelty to Christina and Christopher).
Her money is her own, she owes no one, including her children, a dime. But what she did by leaving Christina and Christopher out "for reasons well-known to them" and give $70,000 to the other two daughters plus her jewelry to one of the other twins, … that was just spiteful.
I still feel like she got those kids more for a Hollywood image. She bought them, bypassing normal adoption routines. She paraded them around and posed them, showing them off like a horse and pony act to make herself look good. Crawford was so big into public image (and she was damn fine at it, don't get me wrong!)…but one doesn't use innocent children for that.
I think she was dealing with some mental health issues especially given her upbringing, and doing what she knew.
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." – Warren Smith -
MissMargoChanning — 6 years ago(May 13, 2019 10:39 PM)
I agree about her reasons for adopting. Oh, she may have wanted children, but I don't think that she really thought it all through, and what it really meant to be a parent.
I always get a kick out of that scene in the movie . It's just before Joan grabs Christina and has he down on the floor, strangling her.
She asks Christina why she can't give her the respect any of her fans would give her. Christina screams, "Because I'M NOT ONE OF YOUR FANS!" the meaning of those words really hit home.
There are many interesting interviews on YouTube. You have most likely seen the ones that are up on that though.
You asked a pretty question; I've given you the ugly answer.
Fasten Your Seatbelts….
It's Going To Be A Bumpy Night! -
Lilith — 6 years ago(May 13, 2019 10:44 PM)
Yes, I agree. She was all about femininity and part of that in society is often associated with having children. What better way? It enhanced her image, and furthered her career and popularity.
That was an exceptional line that was delivered, wasn't it? Joan's fans were devoted and worshipped her, which was all she ever wanted. It was ALL she wanted. She did everything for her fans, at the expense of many and much.
I know when Christina came out with her book and did some talk shows, Joan's fans were outraged. No one will ever know all the details, but fans cannot separate the characters (especially Mildred Pierce) from the individuals playing them. They felt Christina was tarnishing Joan's memory, regardless of how this was a book FOR CHRISTINA, not FOR Joan.
People don't like to see their idols fall.
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." – Warren Smith -
MissMargoChanning — 6 years ago(May 13, 2019 11:06 PM)
I always believed that Christina was telling the truth as she saw it. I have no doubt that much of what she described actually happened. When the "twins" came out and said that none of it was true, I was a bit surprised, but those two were much younger that Christina and Christopher. Things were most likely different over time. Perhaps things had mellowed. Perhaps Joan had gotten a handle on things and lightened up a bit. I don't believe that the two younger girls could possibly know or understand just what happened with the two older children. How could they? They had different childhoods.
Just an example: I'm the youngest in my family. I have/had four older siblings and 9 older step siblings. At one point there were 2 of us girls living at home. The older girls would come and visit. One time my stepmother had me up on a stool pinning a hem on a skirt for me. i was around 16. One of the older girls walked in the house. She was shocked at just how short that hemline was. She said that she was never allowed to wear such short skirts at 16. My stepmother just laughed and said, "You had another childhood! This one (she was pointing at me) is the last one. I'm done fighting over hemlines."
You asked a pretty question; I've given you the ugly answer.
Fasten Your Seatbelts….
It's Going To Be A Bumpy Night! -
Lilith — 6 years ago(May 13, 2019 11:11 PM)
Christina defended her younger siblings in many interviews, citing the exact same thing. Even she said that she believed by the time the younger girls came along, their experience with Joan was extremely different.
Times were different. The ages were different. Joan was different. I've no doubt one bit that she treated them different, and my gut tells me the younger sisters probably did have a much happier relationship with Joan, but that in no way invalidates whatever Christina and Christopher experienced while they were growing up.
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." – Warren Smith -
-
Lilith — 6 years ago(May 14, 2019 12:06 AM)
I am not sure if I'm interpreting this correctly, but it's also possible that Joan poisoned them both against Christina and Christopher. Add that into their experiences being so vastly different, logic goes out the window and emotions take over. They no doubt feel protective and defensive because their own experiences were so vastly different.
To the twins, they may have only seen Joan as this mega-power Hollywood glamour star, and if they were treated really well, they probably couldn't comprehend that Christina and Christopher could have possibly had any different experience. I don't think it was ill intentioned, and I think the twins are/were sincere, but it's hard to accept another viewpoint when your own experience is so different.
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." – Warren Smith -
MissMargoChanning — 6 years ago(May 14, 2019 12:44 AM)
I have no doubt that all of that is true. The whole situation is pretty sad when all is said and done.
You asked a pretty question; I've given you the ugly answer.
Fasten Your Seatbelts….
It's Going To Be A Bumpy Night! -
-
𝕍𝕀𝔻𝔼𝕆-𝕊𝕋𝕆ℝ𝔼-𝕍𝔸𝔾ℝ𝔸ℕ𝕋
— 6 years ago(May 13, 2019 05:40 AM)THE MAKERS OF "MOTHERS DAY" WISH THEY HADNT F@#KED UP SO BAD.
“I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions.” -
Lilith — 6 years ago(May 14, 2019 01:08 AM)
Was this the one…..you know, THAT one?
She was under the bed? She had sex with her sons? She was missing limbs? She was in the trunk? She didn't "want to be 'rescued'"?
If I'm not mistaken, this episode was so disturbing that it even got pulled from the air almost immediately and banned in many places.
Is that the episode to which you refer?
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." – Warren Smith
Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 