Christina Crawford

Joan was, most likely, strict but Christina's recollections seem exaggerated and over the top. Much like Faye's performance.

Define “truth”.

Maybe I did it for a little publicity.

I think it's the truth. I think she (Christina) comes across as unlikable and humorless, so people don't want to believe her.

All of Joan's Hollywood friends who claim "Joan would never ..." Nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors.

As someone who grew up with a mother who suffered from borderline personality disorder, I can tell you that the book portrays that with scary accuracy. Anyone who isn’t familiar with the disorder couldn’t have made this stuff up from one’s imagination. It’s actually very textbook behavior.

Yeah no Joan apologist here. I was raised by a narcissist so my sympathies lie with Christina.

I also enjoyed the more recent "I'm Glad My Mom Died" by Jeanette McCurdy.

Just because you met some old queen who liked Joan, don't think we all do.

Angela Lansbury said she knew from personal experience that many of the stories in the book were true.

R7 Helen Hayes said in her memoir "Joan Crawford was many things but what she should have never been, was a mother. Joan was not rational in her raising of children. You might say she was strict or stern but cruel is probably the right word."

My thoughts are that my closets are all filled with wooden hangers.

I'm not going to call Tina a straight-up liar, but I do think she or her editor "heightened" things to sell books, and then the movie just went off the rails. There are two sides to every story, and Joan never got to tell hers. Tina was wrong and just gave in to her trashy origins, to betray her mother that way.

Any actress who may have commented on Joan's parenting shouldn't be believed, either; they weren't in the house.

People love to call Christina money grubbing. If I got tortured and abused like that I would want some money too for my pain and suffering.

Mommie Dearest reads like a very long National Enquirer article. Joan was a complicated person and I don’t doubt there was abuse and strict rules. Christina was pissed she didn’t get an inheritance, so she wrote an intentionally sensationalized book people would eat up and they sure did. Of course Faye’s incredible (albeit overwrought) performance in the film solidified this. It’s a fun, quick read that shouldn’t be taken very seriously. It was an essential novelty book for many a fag back then and still is today.

I do understand the lurid, campy appeal of the book and movie, but I've always felt very weird about Mommie Dearest. Either it's basically true, in which case we're all (mostly) laughing at horrific child abuse. Or it's exaggerated or false, in which case we're continually damaging the reputation of a very accomplished woman who, by all accounts, cared more about her reputation than anything else.

I personally suspect that Mommie Dearest is true in the overall picture it paints, even if specific incidents were exaggerated or made up. I've read a lot about Joan and she was very much a Type-A individual who set exceedingly high, punishing standards for herself. I can easily see someone like that crossing the line from 'stern disciplinarian' to 'abusive' with their children, possibly without realizing it. I think Joan also had a bit of a chip on her shoulder about having come from a poor, terrible background and having to work so hard to become successful; I can see her taking a "it was tough for me, nobody helped me, I need to prepare them for a harsh world" attitude to child-rearing.

But clearly I'm projecting a bit here.

Joan can be an incredibly kind person to loved ones, friends and kitties and still be a terrible mother.

Joan can be recognized for her talents and professionalism and still be legitimately criticized for how poorly she acted when she brought up, at minimum, her two oldest adopted children.

Both things can be true.

The book I would have written about my parents in my 20s or 30s is very different than the book I would write now at 50. Time has a way of adding more context to the narrative. I think Tina wrote a book, partially out of anger, and then editors, publishers, and filmmakers took her words and made them more than what even Tina intended (that's the benefit of the doubt I'm giving her). Various actors and actresses commenting on Joan's parenting are trafficking salacious gossip. One thing we know about Joan is that she always played Joan Crawford. Even if her world were falling around her at home, the public and her peers wouldn't see it.

Barbara please!

I never laid a fucking hand on those kids.

There’s a lunatic who’s constantly changing Joan Crawford’s Wikipedia page to edit out the abuse. This person is the same one making all of the anti-Bette Davis pages. Wikipedia is voting to ban them. They started a christinacrawfordlies Instagram and YouTube channel.

According to an interview in “With Love, Mommie Dearest”, Christina denies writing the book for financial gain, as she claims she was doing well for herself on her own. Her reasoning was because the press got ahold of the will and was having a field day with the disinheritance, with lots of speculation as to what those “awful” children had done. She wanted to share her side of the story because of that.

R18 Must be the “Concluding Chapter of Crawford” nut.

R20, there’s another one, believe it or not.

Christina had every right to tell her story. She was used like so many other children by the studio system.

There were many eyewitness accounts of Joan being abusive.

[quote] Christina denies writing the book for financial gain

As long as you're telling the truth, I don't see anything wrong in writing a book for financial gain. Especially if you got disinherited by a wealthy parent AND you wanted to dispel false rumors.

I don't understand why people think the things in the book or movie are "probably true but exaggerated." Is it because you don't believe parents are that abusive, or you don't believe Joan Crawford could be that abusive?

The rage, acting almost as if possessed by the rage, is a hallmark of abuse.

People are in denial about actual human behavior behind closed doors.

You can have 2 people grow up in the same household and they have 2 very different accounts.

Victims of abuse are often singly targeted by stealth aggressors who are beloved and respected by other family, community and the public. I believe Christina. So many of St Joan’s stans are unhinged (especially in the Facebook group) and have a creepy obsession and hatred for Christina. She’ll have the last laugh living rent free in so many heads.

R21 Oh? Any details? Is he in cahoots with Bryan Johnston?

Christina's Wikipedia page has a lengthy rant by Myrna Loy.

Christina’s page was also recently edited by the Crawford loon.

“Your truth? Your twisted little arsewipe truth?”

People also seem to forget that Christina's book was the first book of its kind and so there was no telling how it would be received by the public and that it would become so successful. Nearly fifty years after its publication and now living in a confessional cultural era, speaking of parental abuse today is commonplace. Christina's book went along way in making talking about abuse okay and many an abuse victim has talked about how Christina's book opened the door for public conversation about child abuse. What I'm trying to say is that people discussing the financial and other benefits that Christina garnered from the book's publication were not a reality at the time it was first published.

[quote] What I'm trying to say is that people discussing the financial and other benefits that Christina garnered from the book's publication were not a reality at the time it was first published.

Huh?