YMMV / Mommie Dearest

• Alternative Character Interpretation:
  • Was Christina actually abused? Or was she just a bitter young woman trying to make money off her dead mother? Some in Hollywood think that the answer is somewhere in the middle. On one hand, Joan was widely known for having a temper that the public rarely saw due to her being self-aware of how it would hurt her career. On the other hand, Joan cutting her daughter out of her will pushed her over the edge towards writing the book and amplifying the severity of the abuse to epic levels.
    • Several of Joan Crawford's friends, such as Myrna Loy, and biographers, such as Donald Spoto, David Bret and Charlotte Chandler, have argued that Joan's strictness toward her children was grossly overblown by Christina, who had real discipline issues throughout her childhood and adolescence and a poor relationship with her mother thereafter (as did her brother Christopher; the twins had a much better relationship with Joan), and who wrote the book as a Take That! out of resentment, justified or not. (The sources who argue in favor of this interpretation often acknowledge as well that Joan had personality issues that made her not particularly well-suited to be a mother, despite her intense desire for children, giving Christina some leeway in regards to her dislike of Joan.) They also point out that although Joan was, by all accounts, a stern disciplinarian with her children, this was in keeping with the standards of the era, which placed a premium on discipline, filial respect and similar values. Other friends of Joan Crawford and Christina including Helen Hayes, June Allyson, Rex Reed, James McArthur, Betty Hutton, Eve Arden and Lana Turner's daughter Cheryl Crane (who attended the same school as Christina at some point) have come forward to say they did witness some abuse. As usual in these matters, the truth likely lies somewhere in between the two poles, and even her sympathizers agree that Joan did occasionally take very harsh actions in dealing with her children's misbehavior, even more so than the standards of the time, and Christina's anger towards her isn't totally unjustified; for instance, Bret confirms that Joan did once cut Christina's curls off when she caught the girl impersonating her in front of her dressing-room mirror.
  • Joan also counts: Was she an abusive bitch? Or was Joan just mentally disturbed/in desperate need of anti-psychotic medication? John Waters opines that, besides being a prime candidate for medication for her various mental disorders, Joan suffered greatly from the sudden rise from poverty to super-stardom, causing her to project all of her issues with being poor into her obsessive cleaning and going postal on Christina when she used poor people clothing hangers or got into Joan's ultra-expensive make-up and greatly resenting her kids for growing up in luxury and seeming ungrateful for it while she had grown in up in poverty. The camp that argues that Christina's account was either greatly exaggerated or outright fabricated admits that Joan did place an overemphasis on discipline with Christina and Christopher, though she corrected this when raising the twins, and agree that she had issues with having grown up poor and in a dysfunctional family environment. For one example, Joan really did strap Christopher down to his bed to prevent him from masturbating. On the one hand, that's incredibly abusive by modern standards. On the other hand, this was at a time when masturbation was still widely seen as perverted and even physically and psychologically dangerous.
  • A few explanations have been put forward for Joan's infamous hatred for coat hangers in the movie, all related to Joan's character:
    • It has been pointed out that it could be most likely due to the fact that Joan Crawford grew up dirt poor in Texas, working at a family laundromat, and wire coat hangers were a reminder of the past and her struggles being poor.
    • Joan also had to do menial work in her youth at the dry cleaner's behind her house, making the hangers an especially physical reminder of her rough past.
    • Wire hangers can also leave permanent dents and even rust in delicate fabrics, which is what expensive clothes are often made of. Her anger could have derived from the fact that she was angry her daughter was 'ruining' the clothes she spent a lot of money on. Indeed, during her tirade Joan mentions that the dress in question cost $300.
    • It might be even more of a Tear Jerker: Joan Crawford, while married to her first husband Douglas Fairbanks Jr. (from whom she was estranged), had an affair with Clark Gable in 1931, and became pregnant. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer head of publicity Howard Strickling arranged for Joan to get an abortion. At the time, an abortion would very likely have been performed by with a wire hanger, and would have carried an exceptionally high risk of complications resulting in difficulty successfully carrying subsequent pregnancies to term. Therefore, the sight of wire coat hangers might be bringing back a painful memory for Joan, especially given her extreme desire for children combined with her multiple post-abortion miscarriages.
• Audience-Alienating Premise: In the opinion of Roger Ebert: "In scene after scene, we are invited to watch as Joan Crawford screams at Christina, chops her hair with scissors, beats her with a wire coat hanger and, on an especially bad day, tackles her across an end table, hurls her to the carpet, bangs her head against the floor, and tries to choke her to death. Who wants to watch this?" The film is recognized more for its disturbingly accurate depiction of an abusive relationship than for its unintentional camp value today, which just makes it that much harder to watch.
• Audience-Coloring Adaptation: The movie's reputation as an over-the-top unintentional comedy has led to people believing the book to be as trashy and salacious, along the lines of Valley of the Dolls. The book itself is actually a self-portrait of an adult woman trying to reconcile her love for an adopted mother who could sometimes be loving but also erratic and abusive. The film itself is what turned Joan Crawford into a deranged cartoon character, for all Faye Dunaway's insistence that the book tarnished the actress's legacy. Even Christina Crawford herself disowned the film, saying "my mother didn't deserve that". Years later in an interview, when asked how accurate Faye Dunaway's portrayal was, she responded "just the make-up".
• Character Perception Evolution: A very odd case since Joan Crawford was a real person. But the film and book's depiction of her has evolved over the years. The film got a reputation as an unintentional comedy, and Joan was viewed as a laughable camp icon and deranged cartoon character; too ridiculous to take seriously. As years have gone by and awareness of how abuse manifests itself has increased, audiences look to this portrayal as disturbingly accurate.
• Critical Backlash: It was slaughtered by critics and won multiple Razzies, even being declared the worst film of the 1980's, but there are many people now who see it as a genuinely good and underappreciated film that accurately captures the horrors of an abusive childhood and didn't deserve the negative reception it got and criticize the studio for repackaging it as a campy comedy rather than the serious drama it is. Even the infamous "wire hangers" scene has been reclaimed due to those watching the film realizing it's part of a genuinely terrifying moment that is a terrifyingly accurate of growing up with an abusive parent.
• Critical Dissonance: The film grossed $39 million worldwide against its $10 million budget, despite critics slamming it for being campy. The studio realized that the film was getting positive reaction for all of the wrong reasons, and they changed the format of marketing trying to capitalize on it.
• Crosses the Line Twice: Some of Joan's antics are so over-the-top that they can come across as funny. Although this has lessened in recent years as awareness of abusive parenting has grown.
• Cult Classic: In both senses. The film has been popular among bad film fans for years due to Faye Dunaway's over the top performance and the "wire hangers" scene being frequently quoted in the same way as "You're tearing me apart, Lisa!" It's also been going in the other direction in recent years as more people, including John Waters and Brad Jones (both of whom are known lovers of Camp), are starting to see it as genuinely good and underappreciated film with Faye Dunaway being praised for getting Joan Crawford down perfectly and making her a legitimately frightening figure and hitting back against its reputation as a camp classic.
• Diagnosed by the Audience: Many modern viewers have suggested that Joan Crawford may have had untreated bipolar, PTSD, Borderline personality disorder, or Narcissistic personality disorder or some combination of any of the illnesses.
• Don't Shoot the Message:
  • There's a point to be made here about the Hollywood machine's shameful treatment of aging actresses, but it's buried under a mountain of ham.
  • Debate over the validity of Christina's story aside, the film makes an important point that child abuse can happen in any family, even the most privileged, and that said privilege doesn't make the abuse less devastating.
  • Related to the above, many have cited both as illustrating the devastating long-term effects of abuse and trauma and how not recognizing and treating said issues causes them to get repeated with the next generation. Had Joan lived in a time with a greater understanding of mental health, things might have been different.
• Draco in Leather Pants: Joan herself is viewed sympathetically by a lot of fans, who point to her sad upbringing and harsh treatment from the Hollywood studio execs, and say "she had to become like that to succeed". Never mind that in the film itself, it is Joan who adopts a child for publicity and abuses her relentlessly for injuries to her own ego. Pointedly, she takes her out of private school, which was intended as a punishment, once it's clear that Christina is actually enjoying her time there; the principal just wanted a mild punishment for being caught kissing a boy, and Joan took her out when they refused to expel her, and later insists she was expelled anyway. She assaults her daughter numerous times too, and actually tries to strangle her when Christina finally stands up to her. Plenty point out that it's possible to have sympathy for what Joan struggled through, without excusing her actions towards Christina and Christopher.
• Harsher in Hindsight: Faye Dunaway has to portray Joan Crawford begin the film as a Hollywood A-lister, be branded Box Office poison and see her career fade into nothing. This film itself would mark the downward spiral of her own career - although more so staying away from mainstream roles, and she would have plenty more success on the independent circuit and on the stage.
• Hilarious in Hindsight: The soundtrack was first released by La-La Land Records in 2012, a humorous coincidence considering Dunaway’s infamous Oscar incident involving the film La La Land in 2017.
• Jerkass Woobie: Joan. Reading between the lines, the film makes a case that her wild mood swings and abusive behavior stem from a combination of her own harsh childhood, undiagnosed mental illness, and the pressures of Hollywood. None of this excuses her behavior, but it adds a note of sorrow that a woman with every possible resource couldn't recognize or break the cycle of abuse. It's also hard not to feel for her as she finds her opportunities becoming more and more limited as she gets older, despite her past success.
• Just Here for Godzilla: With some crossover into Bile Fascination. Many, if not most people watching the film do so not because they care about the story, but because they want to see Faye Dunaway's unhinged and over-the-top performance as Joan Crawford.
• LGBT Fanbase: As something of a Gateway Series for camp cinema, and being about a famous queer icon, you bet this has a substantial queer fan base.
• Memetic Mutation:
  • Three words: "NO WIRE HANGERS!"
  • "DOOONNNNN'T FUCK WITH ME, FELLAS! This ain't my first time at the rodeo."
• Mis-blamed: Faye Dunaway had a habit of blaming everyone from the director to the producers to the editor to the audience themselves for not understanding what she was trying to do. She also threw plenty of blame Christina Crawford's way for writing the book in the first place. This ignores that the star had her own partner hired as an executive producer to ensure her vision of Joan Crawford was upheld, kept manipulating the script to suit her wishes and was apparently so temperamental on set that (according to Rutanya Alda) everyone "was on pins and needles" whenever she was around - suggesting that Faye Dunaway herself was the only on set with any kind of creative control.
• Narm: A lot, but especially the infamous wire hanger scene. While that's been partly Vindicated by History, the one scene that likely never will be is the one where Joan destroys her orange tree. She calls out "Tina, bring me the axe". Not an axe, but the axe, as if this is a familiar routine. And the extremely young Christina fetches an axe quickly without batting an eye, lending plenty of unintentional hilarity.
• Narm Charm: Faye Dunaway may be over the top a lot of the time but that doesn't do anything to undermine how genuinely frightening she is in the role. Many scenes, including the "wire hangers" moment, effectively get across just how terrifying it would be to grow up with such a person and, if anything, her over the top behavior drives home just how unstable Joan is. Many real-life victims of abuse have attested that, beneath the camp, her performance is a frighteningly accurate portrayal of an abusive, narcissistic parent.
• Never Live It Down: Faye Dunaway well over forty years later can't live down the stories of her temperamental behaviour on the set, and she still refuses to speak about her time on the film. The Ryan Murphy series Feud, which is about Joan Crawford too, even has a Take That! to her.
• Presumed Flop: The film has a reputation of being a bomb that destroyed Faye Dunaway's career to the point that she refuses to talk about it. While it was a bomb critically, it was actually a commercial success; grossing $19 million on a $10 million budget. However, the reason it grossed so much was because the studio realised that it was getting a reputation as an unintentional comedy and quickly changed the marketing campaign from that of a serious biopic to a camp comedy.
• Realism-Induced Horror: As awareness of mental health and child abuse have grown over the years, Joan's treatment of her daughter has gone from "unintentional comedy" to an uncomfortably accurate portrayal of growing up with a mentally ill and abusive parent.
• Retroactive Recognition: Xander Berkeley plays the adult version of Joan's son Christopher in his first ever acting role.
• Signature Scene: Joan's iconic rant about wire hangers is easily the most famous scene and in the film, to the point that some watch it just for that moment. It's also been defended by the film's fans who note that the context of the scene, Joan's reasons for why she has such an intense hatred of them and how legitimately frightening the scene is, especially for people who grew up with abusive parents who really did blow up over minor slights, and note that it's far from the campy moment it's often thought of by those who haven't seen the film and were lucky enough not to grow up with such a parent.
• So Bad, It's Good: The movie version famously developed a reputation as an unintentional comedy to the point that the studio quickly changed the marketing campaign from that of a serious biopic to a camp comedy.
• Took the Bad Film Seriously:
  • Faye Dunaway genuinely believed she would win an Oscar for her portrayal of Crawford, only to get humiliated for her performance following its release. She later said that she was horrified and ashamed of the end result, often saying that the director just didn't care to tone down her performance.^note This however reeks of Never My Fault from the actress - who had her partner appointed as an executive producer to ensure her vision of the film would be met and was so demanding on set (see Troubled Production on the Trivia tab) that it was unlikely she has anyone but herself to blame.
  • John Waters did this with his DVD Commentary. He opens effectively telling listeners that he's going to approach the film as the serious bio-film that it was supposed to be. He also condemns the studio's attempt to turn it into a cult classic by way of retooled marketing, pointing out how forced it was trying to do it without letting it naturally occur.
  • The Cinema Snob also gave a very positive review of the movie, going so far as to break character to praise Dunaway's performance and slam the Razzies for "awarding" the film Worst Picture of that year. He also raises some really good points about pop culture's perception of scenes of movies without the overall context (namely, the fact that the infamous "wire hangers" scene is followed by Joan beating Christina with said wire hanger).
  • Although Roger Ebert very much hated this film and gave it a one-star review, he didn't have anything bad to say about Dunaway's acting. In fact, when ​listing the few positive aspects of the film, he ​briefly mentions that her performance was "stunningly suggestive and convincing."
• Too Bleak, Stopped Caring: Everything that involves Joan abusing Christina from start to finish. Also see Audience-Alienating Premise above.
• Values Dissonance: Spanking children was not unheard of in Joan's generation. Related to the Alternative Character Interpretation at the top of the page however, it's up to the reader/viewer how much or how little that excuses her behavior toward her children. In particular she would tie her son to the bed with his arms at his sides to make sure he wouldn't masturbate (even when he was a lot younger than a lot of boys who would start that behavior), which took place at a time when masturbation was seen as medically and psychologically dangerous. Naturally, such a step would never be tolerated today.
• Values Resonance:
  • Regardless of all the hamminess surrounding the movie, it makes a point about the Hollywood machine's shameful treatment of aging actresses that still resonates to this day.
  • Debate over the validity of Christina's story aside, the film makes an important point that child abuse can happen in any family, even the most privileged, and that said privilege doesn't make the abuse less devastating.
  • While the infamous wire-hanger scene was viewed as ridiculous during the film’s release (and even now to some extent), a lot modern viewers don’t see it as such and view it as a frighteningly realistic depiction of a narcissistic abusive parent where any minor slight or mistake is treated as an unforgivable offense and results in reactions varying from verbal abuse to outright violence. Viewers who have gone through similar experiences point out that many child abuse stories seem far-fetched, but are still very true and very terrifying.
  • The portrayal of Joan also shows the lingering damage of impoverished or unstable childhoods and how badly mental illness and trauma can spiral when left untreated.
• Vindicated by History: Has been getting this reputation in some circles, with audiences feeling that it's not as bad as everyone says it is and even has legitimately good elements, most notably Faye Dunaway's performance and how it tackles the subject of ageism in Hollywood and it's portrayal of childhood abuse in general. In his review, The Cinema Snob not only gave it a glowing, non-ironic review, going as far as to praise the infamous "No wire hangers!" scene for such a raw performance, but furiously blamed its bad reputation on negative word-of-mouth more than the quality of the movie itself.
  Snob: Personally, in my book, [removes his glasses] Faye Dunaway gives the single greatest movie performance of all time! ^note When Brad Jones removes the Cinema Snob's glasses, it means he's speaking as himself, not as his character
• The Woobie: Christina and Christopher. For the majority of the film, they're just children trying to cope with a volatile situation. When Christina gets old enough to defy her mother and protect herself, she ends up being punished for it. And in the end, after suffering a lifetime of abuse, the only mother they ever knew denied them the inheritance that they arguably earned after dealing with her—and while it might make sense that Joan disinherited Christina due to her rebelliousness, it's not clear what poor Christopher did to deserve this.

---