Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Literature / MommieDearest

Go To

OR

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


In a nutshell, ''Mommie Dearest'' (1978) was a memoir written by Creator/ChristinaCrawford, depicting her physical and mental abuse at the hands of her adoptive mother, famed actress Creator/JoanCrawford. It led to the equally famous [[TheFilmOfTheBook Film of the Book]], which starred Creator/FayeDunaway in the role of Joan.

to:

In a nutshell, ''Mommie Dearest'' (1978) was a memoir written by Creator/ChristinaCrawford, Christina Crawford, depicting her physical and mental abuse at the hands of her adoptive mother, famed actress Creator/JoanCrawford. It led to the equally famous [[TheFilmOfTheBook Film of the Book]], which starred Creator/FayeDunaway in the role of Joan.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


In a nutshell, ''Mommie Dearest'' (1978) was a memoir written by Creator/ChristinaCrawford, depicting her physical and mental abuse at the hands of her adoptive mother, famed actress Creator/JoanCrawford. It spawned the equally famous [[TheFilmOfTheBook Film of the Book]], with Creator/FayeDunaway in the role of Joan.

to:

In a nutshell, ''Mommie Dearest'' (1978) was a memoir written by Creator/ChristinaCrawford, depicting her physical and mental abuse at the hands of her adoptive mother, famed actress Creator/JoanCrawford. It spawned led to the equally famous [[TheFilmOfTheBook Film of the Book]], with which starred Creator/FayeDunaway in the role of Joan.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


To put it more bluntly and in more detail, the book pretty much destroyed Crawford's reputation in the eyes of the public, as far as the book's revelations about her systematic abuse of her children, Christina in particular. The book's vivid recounting of Joan's psychotic behavior and abuse of her children polarized Hollywood into camps of those who confirmed Christina's story (or would at least acknowledge that signs of abuse were apparent but ignored) and those who decried the book as a revenge plot to ruin her mother's name after being disinherited and raise Christina's profile after her own failed attempts at an acting career.

The book can be seen as one of the first (and arguably most successful) of the genre of nasty tell-all biographies of stars, mostly from UsefulNotes/TheGoldenAgeOfHollywood, told by their children. The kids of Creator/MarleneDietrich, Creator/JudyGarland, Creator/HenryFonda, Loretta Young, Music/BingCrosby, Creator/BetteDavis, Creator/LanaTurner, and Creator/PeterSellers all tried to replicate its success with varying results (the Davis book flopped and was debunked, for example, but the books that Dietrich's and Crosby's respective broods wrote did quite well).

The 1981 [[TheFilmOfTheBook film adaptation of the book]] was an even bigger debacle: Dunaway (who ironically had been praised by Crawford in print prior to her death and who even suggested that she should play her in the inevitable bio-film of Joan's life) was cast and Paramount mounted it as a serious bio-film. Sadly though, after numerous re-writes and a director (Frank Perry) who had a penchant for hammy melodramas, much of Joan's character development ended up missing, which turned her into a deranged cartoon character, and the abuse segments took on larger than life sadistic tones. By the end, even Christina Crawford (whose husband had a hand in producing the film) thought the film was too over-the-top and too focused on Joan at the expense of Christina's personal journey as a child abuse survivor. As such, Dunaway came off as a LargeHam--her acting career never really recovered--and the film picked up a huge word-of-mouth regarding it as [[SoBadItsGood an unintentional comedy]]. This forced the studio to {{retool}} the marketing to focus on the over-the-top abuse. Despite being savaged by critics and resulting in Golden Raspberry wins and nominations all around, the film was a success at the box office, grossing $39 million worldwide on a $10 million budget, and it also secured itself as a CultClassic.

to:

To put it more bluntly and (and in more detail, detail), the book pretty much destroyed Crawford's reputation in the eyes of the public, as far as the book's public due to its revelations about her systematic abuse of her children, Christina in particular. The book's vivid recounting of Joan's psychotic behavior and abuse of her children polarized Hollywood into camps of those who confirmed Christina's story (or would at least acknowledge that signs of abuse were apparent but ignored) and those who decried the book as a revenge plot to ruin her mother's name after being disinherited and raise Christina's profile after her own failed attempts at an acting career.

The book can be seen as one of the first (and arguably (and, arguably, most successful) of in the genre of nasty tell-all biographies "tell-all" memoirs of stars, mostly from UsefulNotes/TheGoldenAgeOfHollywood, told by their children. The kids of Creator/MarleneDietrich, Creator/JudyGarland, Creator/HenryFonda, Loretta Young, Creator/PeterSellers, Music/BingCrosby, Creator/BetteDavis, Creator/LanaTurner, Creator/MarleneDietrich, Creator/LorettaYoung, Creator/JudyGarland, and Creator/PeterSellers Creator/HenryFonda all tried to replicate its success with varying results (the Davis book book, for example, flopped and was debunked, for example, countered with a memoir by Davis herself, but the books that Dietrich's and Crosby's respective broods wrote did quite well).

The 1981 [[TheFilmOfTheBook film adaptation of the book]] was an even bigger debacle: Dunaway (who ironically had been praised by (whom Crawford in print had, prior to her death and who even suggested that she should death, recommended to play her in the inevitable bio-film biopic of Joan's her life) was cast and Paramount mounted it as a serious bio-film. Sadly though, after drama. However, thanks to numerous re-writes script rewrites and a director (Frank Perry) who had a penchant for hammy melodramas, much of Joan's character development ended up missing, which turned her into a deranged cartoon character, and the abuse segments took on larger than life sadistic tones. By the end, even Christina Crawford (whose husband had a hand in producing the film) thought the film was too over-the-top and too focused on Joan at the expense of Christina's personal journey as a child abuse survivor. As such, Dunaway came off as a LargeHam--her acting career never really recovered--and the film picked up a huge word-of-mouth regarding it as [[SoBadItsGood an unintentional comedy]]. This forced the studio to {{retool}} the marketing to focus on the over-the-top abuse. Despite being savaged by critics and resulting in Golden Raspberry wins and nominations all around, the film was a success at the box office, grossing $39 million worldwide on a $10 million budget, and it also secured itself as a CultClassic.

Added: 551

Changed: 250

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Added example(s)


* DemotedToExtra: Christina’s memoir was naturally written from her point-of-view and chronicles her journey as a domestic abuse survivor. The film adaptation focuses almost entirely on Joan Crawford and downgrades Christina to a supporting character in her own story.

to:

* DemotedToExtra: DemotedToExtra:
**
Christina’s memoir was naturally written from her point-of-view and chronicles her journey as a domestic abuse survivor. The film adaptation focuses almost entirely on Joan Crawford and downgrades Christina to a supporting character in her own story.story.
** Christopher’s role in the film is greatly reduced compared to the book. After Diana Scarwid takes over as Christina, he completely disappears from the story until the very end. No mention is made of his many troubles with Joan, his running away from home to escape her, nor his time at Chadwick.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Added example(s)

Added DiffLines:

* NeverTrustATrailer: Diana Scarwid does not appear in the trailer at all while Mara Hobel is featured prominently, giving the impression the film focuses exclusively on Christina’s young childhood.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* AdaptationalContextChange: In the book, Joan’s hacking down the rose garden was described a random event, part of Joan’s erratic night raids. In the film, she destroys the garden in response to being let go from MGM as a means of channeling her anger. Christina Crawford heavily disapproved of this change, feeling the cause and effect explanation was too simplistic.

to:

* AdaptationalContextChange: In the book, Joan’s Joan hacking down the rose garden was described as a random event, part of Joan’s erratic night raids. In the film, she destroys the garden in response to being let go from MGM as a means of channeling her anger. Christina Crawford heavily disapproved of this change, feeling the cause and effect explanation was too simplistic.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Added example(s)

Added DiffLines:

* AdaptationalContextChange: In the book, Joan’s hacking down the rose garden was described a random event, part of Joan’s erratic night raids. In the film, she destroys the garden in response to being let go from MGM as a means of channeling her anger. Christina Crawford heavily disapproved of this change, feeling the cause and effect explanation was too simplistic.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* DenserAndWackier: The book is a self-portrait of a now grown woman remembering her adoptive mother and how she could be both loving and abusive at the same time. The film is much more melodramatic, focusing on Joan as a POV character and is full of over-the-top scenes such, as Joan chopping down an orange tree in the middle of the night or throwing a fit when she sees Christina hanging her clothes on wire hangers. Unsurprisingly, it gained a reputation as an unintentional comedy.

to:

* DenserAndWackier: The book is a self-portrait of a now grown woman remembering her adoptive mother and how she could be both loving and abusive at the same time. The film is much more melodramatic, focusing on Joan as a POV character and is full of over-the-top scenes such, scenes, such as Joan chopping down an orange tree in the middle of the night or throwing a fit when she sees Christina hanging her clothes on wire hangers. Unsurprisingly, it gained a reputation as an unintentional comedy.

Added: 210

Changed: 70

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* AdaptationDistillation: The film condenses many of the characters and scenes from the book.

to:

* AdaptationDistillation: AdaptationDistillation:
**
The film condenses many of the characters and scenes from the book.book.
** All references to Joan practicing Christian Science were omitted.



** An animal example: none of the dogs Joan had were shown in the film.



** Christina Crawford later said that the scenes of Joan chopping down a tree in her garden, and the infamous wire hangers scene were taken out of context and greatly exaggerated in the film.

to:

** Christina Crawford later said that the scenes of Joan chopping down a tree in her garden, and the infamous wire hangers scene scene, were taken out of context and greatly exaggerated in the film.



* NoHistoricalFiguresWereHarmed: While the character of Carol Ann is an amalgamation of several servants and assistants that worked for Joan throughout her lifetime, the majority of the character is influenced by Joan's longtime personal secretary, Betty Barker and Mamacita, a housekeeper she hired during the latter half of her life.

to:

* NoHistoricalFiguresWereHarmed: While the character of Carol Ann is an amalgamation of several servants and assistants that worked for Joan throughout her lifetime, the majority of the character is influenced by Joan's longtime personal secretary, Betty Barker Barker, and Mamacita, a housekeeper she hired during the latter half of her life.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** For the sake of simplification, the film omits the fact that both Christina and Christopher were originally named Joan and Phillip, respectively, along with the fact that the ''original'' Christopher was reclaimed by his birth mother.

to:

** For the sake of simplification, the film omits the fact ignores that both Christina and Christopher were originally named Joan and Phillip, respectively, along with the fact that the ''original'' Christopher was reclaimed by his birth mother.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** The unfilmed scene showing the production of ''Ice Follies of 1939'' would’ve been an example of this had it been shot. As written, Joan injures her ankle during a skating sequence, but perseveres anyway, much to the crew’s admiration. In real life, Joan’s role in that film was a non-skating part.

to:

** The unfilmed scene showing the production of ''Ice Follies of 1939'' would’ve been an example of this had it been shot. As written, Joan injures her ankle during a an elaborate skating sequence, sequence but perseveres anyway, much to the crew’s admiration. In real life, Joan’s role in that the film was a non-skating part. that of an inept skater, and very few scenes depicted her on the ice in any significant way.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
added example(s)

Added DiffLines:

** The unfilmed scene showing the production of ''Ice Follies of 1939'' would’ve been an example of this had it been shot. As written, Joan injures her ankle during a skating sequence, but perseveres anyway, much to the crew’s admiration. In real life, Joan’s role in that film was a non-skating part.

Added: 365

Changed: 126

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* CompressedAdaptation: The wire hangers and bathroom floor meltdowns were two separate events in the book; the film merged them into a single night.

to:

* CompressedAdaptation: CompressedAdaptation:
** For the sake of simplification, the film omits the fact that both Christina and Christopher were originally named Joan and Phillip, respectively, along with the fact that the ''original'' Christopher was reclaimed by his birth mother.
**
The wire hangers and bathroom floor meltdowns were two separate events in the book; the film merged them into a single night.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
added example(s)

Added DiffLines:

* OohMeAccentsSlipping: Diana Scarwid is never able to fully shed her natural southern accent.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* TrappedAtTheDinnerTable: Joan has black market meat at her dinner table, served rare and bloody. When Christina refuses to eat it, claiming it looks raw, Joan tells her she won't be getting off the table until she eats it. Eventually, Christina is allowed to put her plate in the fridge...only to find it in front of her for the next meal. This lasts for three days.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Crossing with using CompositeCharacter on real people, Joan also had four husbands, though she was on her third by the time she became a mother. The movie combines the three first husbands with her attorney and on-again, off-again lover Greg Bautzer ([[AdaptationNameChange renamed]] 'Greg Savitt' in the film), though one scene has Joan mentioning that she suffered several miscarriages while trying to conceive with a former partner, something that actually happened to Crawford with her second husband Franchot Tone.

to:

** Crossing with using CompositeCharacter on real people, Joan also had four husbands, though she was on her third by the time she became a mother. The movie combines the three first husbands third husband Philip Terry with her attorney and on-again, off-again lover Greg Bautzer ([[AdaptationNameChange renamed]] 'Greg Savitt' in the film), though one film). One early scene has Joan mentioning that she suffered several miscarriages while trying to conceive with a former partner, lover, something that actually happened to Crawford with her second husband Franchot Tone.



* BlandNameProduct: A unique example regarding Joan's acting career. Since Paramount owned the rights to very few of her films,[[note]]In fact, Paramount had been the ''only'' studio Joan had never made a film for[[/note]] most of Joan's work is left intentionally vague.

to:

* BlandNameProduct: A unique example regarding Joan's acting career. Since Paramount owned the rights to very few of her films,[[note]]In films[[note]]In fact, Paramount had been the ''only'' studio Joan had never made a film for[[/note]] for[[/note]], most of Joan's work is left intentionally vague.



* CompositeCharacter: In the film, Greg is a combination of the various husbands and lovers Joan had, while the housekeeper and Carol Ann are meant to represent several employees in Joan's house.

to:

* CompositeCharacter: In the film, Greg is a combination of the various a few husbands and lovers Joan had, while the housekeeper and Carol Ann are meant to represent several employees in Joan's house.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Joan’s mother, Anna Cassin, and brother, Hal [=LeSueur=], do not appear and are never mentioned.

to:

** Joan’s mother, Anna Cassin, and brother, Hal [=LeSueur=], do not appear and are never mentioned.appear, though her mother is briefly mentioned (albeit not named).

Added: 236

Changed: 77

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Expanded “Adapted Out”


* AdaptedOut: No mention of Christina and Christopher's other siblings in the film version.

to:

* AdaptedOut: No mention of Christina AdaptedOut:
** Cathy
and Christopher's other siblings in Cindy, the film version.twin girls Joan later adopted, were removed entirely.
** Joan’s mother, Anna Cassin, and brother, Hal [=LeSueur=], do not appear and are never mentioned.
** Christina’s first husband, Harvey Medlinsky, was omitted.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* CompressedAdaptation: The wire hangers and bathroom floor meltdowns were two separate events in the book; the film merged them into a single night.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


In a nutshell, ''Mommie Dearest'' (1978) was a memoir written by Christina Crawford, depicting her physical and mental abuse at the hands of her adoptive mother, famed actress Creator/JoanCrawford. It spawned the equally famous [[TheFilmOfTheBook Film of the Book]], with Creator/FayeDunaway in the role of Joan.

to:

In a nutshell, ''Mommie Dearest'' (1978) was a memoir written by Christina Crawford, Creator/ChristinaCrawford, depicting her physical and mental abuse at the hands of her adoptive mother, famed actress Creator/JoanCrawford. It spawned the equally famous [[TheFilmOfTheBook Film of the Book]], with Creator/FayeDunaway in the role of Joan.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
not a trope anymore


* AdaptationExplanationExtrication: In the film, Crawford's son Christopher is frequently seen strapped to his bed, but the moviegoing audience never gets any explanation why he is subjected to this treatment, thus causing a lot of confusion. Only those who've read the book would know [[spoiler:Joan strapped Christopher down to his bed to prevent him from [[ADateWithRosiePalms masturbating]].]]

to:

* AdaptationExplanationExtrication: In the film, Crawford's son Christopher is frequently seen strapped to his bed, but the moviegoing audience never gets any explanation why he is subjected to this treatment, thus causing a lot of confusion. Only those who've read the book would know [[spoiler:Joan strapped Christopher down to his bed to prevent him from [[ADateWithRosiePalms masturbating]].masturbating.]]

Added: 161

Removed: 161

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* FosteringForProfit: Christina claims that this was Joan's intention, and her film counterpart [[CallingTheOldManOut chews]] Joan's film counterpart out for it.


Added DiffLines:

* FosteringForProfit: Christina claims that this was Joan's intention, and her film counterpart [[CallingTheOldManOut chews]] Joan's film counterpart out for it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* FosteringForProfit: Christina claims that this was Joan's intention, and her film counterpart [[CallingTheOldManOut chews]] Joan's film counterpart out for it.

Top