The greatest of all time, Joan Crawford, would have turned 120 today!

She didn't photograph well, but she looks good here.

OP, love the pic you chose. Those golf ball eyes!

RIP, Joanie.

Her eyebrows would be turning 75.

She walked, so I could run!

Even at 120 ol' Joan would still be trying to pull off 80 year old ingenues

R1: "She didn't photograph well, but she looks good here."

Is this a joke? She was one of the most photogenic human beings who ever lived. If she had laid off the heavy makeup and matronly hairdos, she would have been beautiful even when she was older. But she didn't.

Once she got into the 1930s she always looked old and hard

[quote] The greatest of all time, Joan Crawford, would have turned 120 today!

For reasons which are well known to her......

Joan Crawford was one of the most beautiful and photogenic women ever. How dare you R1!

[quote]Once she got into the 1930s she always looked old and hard

Yes...very old and hard here (1935).

The oldest documented human lived to 122. Imagine if Joan was still with us at such an old age - a woman who was already an adult during in the 1920s

Imagine a supercentenarian Joan Crawford joining league with Olivia de Havilland to sue Ryan Murphy!

She was stunning in the 1920s and 1930s.

She was a fashion stylist's dream.

The greatest of all time? Based on longevity maybe. Certainly not based on anything else, since she was never a very resourceful or expressive actress and her beauty had begun to harden by 1937.

Bette Davis maybe. I’d even make a case for Vivien Leigh, who made relatively few films, but was such a wonderful actress and such a great beauty in the ‘30s and ‘40s that you can watch her and be completely enchanted by her.

Crawford worked hard, tried hard and the effort always showed. She was not a natural.

@r10, That bitch wanted me dead, hard is being polite

she gave good face 😊

[quote]her beauty had begun to harden by 1937

1946

She didn’t photograph well? Yes, good ole DL. Picasso can’t paint, Streisand can’t sing, and one of the screens great actresses clearly loved by the camera moving or still, isn’t photogenic. Einstein’s genius is overrated too.

Crawford was most definitely a damaged woman as became apparent in her demeanor and interviews as she aged- you don’t need Mommy Dearest to see that. But she was one of the great screen actors of her time.

I’d say she was one of the great stars, but by no means one of the great actresses.

Joanie wasn't the most talented of actresses, but she was perhaps the most ambitious and determined to succeed and hold on to her legacy actress. And while her aging female peers had either retired or transitioned to character parts, she held out the longest as a sexually desirable female romantic lead, being paired with actors younger than she. Kudos to her! If her male counterparts, Cary Grant, James Stewart, Fred Astaire, etc., were being cast opposite young up-and-comers, why couldn't she?

Well, 116-120.

@r18, you sure you want to go 1940s without the word "hard"?

Joan Crawford wasn't a great natural beauty, as candid shots will show. But she had a great bone structure and striking eyes. And kept her figure taut for decades. And as she got older, less would have been more...

Joan was a star. She would have never lowered herself to putting ads in the trades looking (begging) for work. The directors came to her, and she always delivered.

Turning 120 on Warners' back lot would have been a slow weekend for Joan.

^ Bette, you lived way past 120, what was it like?

When Joanie married into Hollywood royalty (Pickford-Fairbanks), she transformed from flapper floozy to glamorous style icon. Just look at what a glamorous pair she and Douglas Fairbanks Jr made!

Another shot of Crawford & Fairbanks.

Douglas Fairbanks though he'd died and gone to heaven when he landed Joan.

Mary just loved her trashy daughter-in-law 🙄

Doug Fairbanks' mother, socialite, Anna Beth Sully, dismissed Joan as "my son's current chorus-girl fling."

120? Oh, my sides! I guess they still haven't found her real birth certificate.

Oh she could act- contrast her Crystal Allen with Blanche. She was a screen actress- one of the very best. Like the very best, you can’t take your eyes off her when on screen. As she aged her hardened brand of ambition trimmed her flexibility as an actress- but she still delivered (Baby Jane).

I always thought she was playing herself as Crystal Allen.

Birthday girl Joan Crawford had one of her best roles in 1946's "Humoresque." Like "The Women," Joan realized that while it wasn't the biggest role, society woman Helen Wright was a challenging one. And John Garfield was perhaps her strongest leading man since MGM's Clark Gable, as the churlish violinist that she patronizes. This smart soap opera is well-done on every level, my take here:

Joan is trending on Twitter! She's still got it!

So many stories to her story. I have to admit I haven't seen enough of her movies to be informed. But I like all the legend and scandal around her. For me, I just can't get past the eyebrows. I will continue to make the effort, but they steal every scene.

George Hurrell loved photographing Joan. She was extremely photogenic. Her nose was so perfectly shaped that Hurrell thought she had a nose job.

That photo was heavily air-brushed, R46.

Blame Christina!!!

[quote]That photo was heavily air-brushed, [R46].

Hurry up, r46, post the photo!

Greatest of all time?

Greatest something.

R24, tastes obviously differ, but I respectfully disagree on the naturalness of Joan's beauty. Her features and figure were top of the line by any objective standard. Have a look at these home movies on the George Eastman Museum website. This is Joan at her most natural, and--if I may say!--stunningly beautiful.

I do agree with you that her later years were marked by cosmetic excess (assuming that's what you meant?)

Reply 24 here, yes, that's what I was referring to in regards to later years. Less would have been far more effective. Those old home movies are great and I think Joan was at the peak of her looks in the first half of the '40s in particular. I just always thought she was more handsome than beautiful. But beauty standards are subjective, for sure.

Hi, R45! Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Love your movie threads and thoughts on the classics and stars. I agree on JC's handsomeness--especially in the later years. From Torch Song onward she was, although still beautiful, startling to look at! I loved her beauty in the 30s and 40s.

She’s the queen. I have an alter in my home that features a vile of her favorite perfume, her favorite flowers, a red wierdo, and various movie posters.

In "Harriet Craig," she refers to her Ming "vah-z" several times.

Hey Reply 46! Thank you and in the '50s and '60s she had her moments, when she wasn't painting outside the lines with make-up and not wearing 3 falls! I thought she looked superb in her two early '60s Oscar appearances, with silvery hair, simply makeup, and whippet slim figure.

Or 118th birthday, depending upon what biography you read.

All those abortions hardened her looks.

She was 5'3" and half of that was her enormous head.

I agree Joan was stunning, but toward the end of the 1930s you could tell her styling changed. She looked harder in The Women, and I think it was mostly hair and makeup, but her face became more angular in the 40s and, combined with the makeup and styling, continued to harden her appearance. The 50s styling emphasized it even more. She didn't look bad at all, though--just different. I would say she looked attractive and glamorous in Harriet Craig, for example, and that was around 1950. But by the time of Torch Song and Johnny Guitar, she started to tread closer to drag queen territory. But it was still uniquely Joan, and it wasn't really a thing to have a middle-aged woman styled younger than how Joan was styled by that time. Women in their 40s and 50s in Hollywood all kind of got that same treatment in the 1950s (like Jane Wyman, etc.).

So young.

Joan was one of a kind. They all were.

The buccal procedure she had also gave Joan a sharper aspect.

I said, "Is there something on my face?"

Joan and Marlene Dietrich allegedly had some of their back teeth removed to enhance their cheekbones.

Joan didn't photograph well? Good lord. You're nuts.

R58, According to her devoted biographers, the buccal surgery is a myth. I believe them, for their fastidious reporting.

Christina! Bring me the embalming fluid!

The Condescending Chapter of Crawford...

R26

You gave me a laugh today, which otherwise has been a bust and a bore and a drain.

Thanks!

[quote]She’s the queen. I have an alter in my home that features a vile of her favorite perfume, her favorite flowers, a red wierdo, and various movie posters.

She’s the queen. I have an [bold]altar[/bold] in my home that features a [bold]vial[/bold] of her favorite perfume, her favorite flowers, a red [bold]weirdo[/bold], and various movie posters.

She's amazing. Such a rare kind of magnetic screen presence.

I watched Sudden Fear tonight and will soon watch Possessed again.

Have to agree. She was stunningly beautiful when young and into her 40’s. She managed to embrace and personify each era the 20’s 30’s 40’s. Her films were often run of the mill stuff churned out by the studios and yet she was one of the most popular stars in the world. They gave the classy stuff to Garbo and Shearer but it was the money earned by Crawford films the funded them. Watch the clip from Humoresque. All a bit camp now, but watch from about 2mins in. The face is a piece of living sculpture. Imagine seeing on a cinema screen 20 ft high.

[quote]She’s the queen. I have an alter in my home that features a vile of her favorite perfume, her favorite flowers, a red wierdo, and various movie posters.

MARY!

She's not the only queen.

Her insecurities.

She outlasted Garbo for Christ sake…..

It would be interesting to know how much Joan's clients were charged when she was still working part time in Polly Adler's house.

^Well dear Norma, all you have to do is ask your husband. I practically bought my first home just from his “kindness”……

She was most likely born in either 1905 or 1906. Christina most likely made up 1904 out of spite.

She's great in Grand hotel. Beautiful and a wonderful actress. She gets one of those telephone scenes which should have won her an Oscar. Also that scene in Rain where she reproaches minister Walter Houston for his hypocrisy and he starts reciting the Lord's prayer to drown her out. And who else could in a film in the 40s get away with telling her daughter "Get out of this house or I'll kill you!' And you root for her! Yeah kill that ungrateful bitch even if she is your child! And I guess I'm the only one who thinks she gave the far better performance in Baby Jane while Bette is devouring the scenery like she was a starving orphan at a buffet.

Would she be iconic without Christina’s book?

She never spoke of her people.

R74 - It was the film version of Mommie Dearest that really made her immortal. Without that she would be relegated to Bette Davis, Vivien Leigh, and Katherine Hepburn territory -- vaguely remembered as a good, old-timey actress.

[quote] vaguely remembered as a good, old-timey actress.

I'm certain you mean her early work was in the 1920s and 30s but she was also a very modern actress. The first time I watched Grand Hotel on TCM I was struck how she contrasted with Garbo. Greta's broad overacting was almost painful to watch " Ring!! Ring !! " while Joan played with a naturalism that would still be rare twenty years afterwards. Joan acted the Great Garbo right off the screen.

G.O.A.T. is a perfect description of Joan and her various and assorted odors.

Someone upthread said she was “whippet slim”?

Adrian talked about Joan’s broad shoulders but the truth was always that she was flat-chested and very broad in the beam from shoulders to thigh, including her waist, which was never narrow. Short and with an enormous head, she had the body of an athlete, a female wrestler, in contrast to Ginger Rogers, who in the 1930s was as sleek, slim and curvy as an Art Deco car ornament.

I’m not siggesting Crawford was fat, she dropped the bloat and excess weight within a year of getting to MGM in 1925. She swam, played tennis, rode horses, dieted and sun-bathed, pioneering the idea of having a suntan as her makeup foundation, which lots of ‘modern’ girls were doing by the late 1920s. But even at her slimmest she was as wide as a barn door, which you can see in any of her mid-‘30s films where she wears skimpy showgirl costumes.

And Adrian’s job was to obscure that fact, which he did with showy yokes and collars that showed off her only good feature — her face. When that started looking hard and ravaged it was all over. She as lucky she got to Warner Bros which hit on a formula that extended her career and explained why she looked liked 20 miles of bad road.

Poor Joan.

R79 . . .

R76, interesting points. I would argue that she's remembered as a star, not an actress really. Her most enduing roles (WH2BJ & Mildred Pierce?) are both bland & long suffering rather than glam or scenery chewing. Davis and Leigh win for memorable roles. Maybe even over Hepburn. All subjective and a matter of taste I suppose.

R77 I never could stand to watch Garbo in anything.

Can someone please tell me what a “red weirdo” is? I Googled the term and found nothing that made sense.

[quote]She outlasted Garbo for Christ sake…..

If you're talking about Garbo's career, most stars did.

R83 - Given the time frame, I would guess that "red" meant Commie, while weirdo has remained the same. Hollywood was way more conservative back then, and I thought Joan herself was a Republican.

Are all of you new here?

Joan herself was a Republican. Lucille Ball was the commie.

Joan wanted JFK so bad.

By that time, Joan would have had trouble bagging Joe Sr.

R83. It has something to do with Mexican saw-sage