Did joan really abuse her children?
-
cookiela2001 — 10 years ago(August 18, 2015 08:59 AM)
Lord Inherent is right.Christina Crawford wrote an original draft of the screenplay, which was not used. The book was then adapted through various drafts by a handful of writers, and certain events were condensed, or altered in ways.
For instance, the famous "wire hanger sequence" was actually two different nights. And the floor that was scrubbed was Crawford's dressing room, not Christina's bathroom. She had been given the chore of washing it during the day, then found herself dragged out of bed in the middle of the night to redo it when Crawford decided it was not up to par. The scene continued as it does in the movie, but it was a different night than when the closet was destroyed.
The book is actually really good.kind of impossible to put down. And many of Crawford's contemporaries have attested that they witnessed the star's fantatical, deranged (and, in a word, alcoholic) treatment of her two eldest children.
Crawford was quite a piece of work. As her friend Helen Hayes said, "Joan tried to be all things to all people. I just wish she had never tried to be a mother."
. -
Earl-Janoth — 10 years ago(August 25, 2015 08:19 PM)
many of Crawford's contemporaries have attested
Bit of an exaggeration there. One or two came forward with information, but it's questionable that so many other people within Crawford's inner circle - including her two other adopted children, and the help - claim to have seen nothing. -
deem_bastille — 9 years ago(April 15, 2016 06:06 PM)
correct. also worth mentioning that there is no Carol Ann in the book. there was a revolving door of assistants who joan had throughout the years.
there were also a set of twin girls who were not in the movie because they behaved. also, they didn't think it was worth mentioning in the movie the first Christopher. his mother wanted him back so he was returned to her.
the movie also made joan single throughout Christina and Christopher's childhood although she married phillip terry about 2 years or so after Christina. phillip and joan were the ones who adopted the first Christopher. 'the second christopher' was originally named Phillip terry jr.
Oh God. Fortune
vomits
on my eiderdown once more. -
rascal67 — 9 years ago(April 30, 2016 03:06 PM)
The book is actually really good.kind of impossible to put down. And many of Crawford's contemporaries have attested that they witnessed the star's fantatical, deranged (and, in a word, alcoholic) treatment of her two eldest children.
Yes, pity the film couldn't capture the same essence of the book. They turned a compelling disturbing story from a first person's pov and experiences living with Joan Crawford, into a cheesy and at times campy and exaggerated tale "about" Joan Crawford. The film needed to be told more from Christina's perspective, with a better cast and superior direction.
Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata: -
rascal67 — 9 years ago(May 01, 2016 03:21 AM)
Have you read the book Nan? It is well worth it, even if it could be considered a bit disturbing. Joan was all out for herself and to remain on-top, or at the very least stay relevant. She didn't care for her adopted children as one who should take full responsibility for their well being and upbringing, just a duty she was doing to get promotion and satiate an entitlement she wanted at the time. Unfortunately for Christina and Christopher they didn't remain babies and had minds of their own. If Joan wasn't an alcoholic, I can't say if things would have turned out as bad for them; but the book does focus on her drinking and behaviors due to the boozing. It turned her into a Mr. Hyde.
Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata: