Launderess: Nice find! I knew that Haines had gone into interior design when he was pushed from the Hollywood nest for having an open relationship with a man, but didn't realize his design company lived on after him.
Movie For A Rainy Saturday Night - Mildred Pierce!
- Thread starter launderess
- Start date
Help Support :
danemodsandy
Well-known member
Frigilux:
If you want to go cross-eyed with delight, there is a recent book on Billy Haines' career and designs you should seek out. It's called Class Act: William Haines, Legendary Hollywood Decorator; I reviewed it for Modernism a few issues back. Author is Peter Schifando, publisher is Pointed Leaf Press. Not cheap at $95 list price, but Amazon has deals that cut that nearly in half, and of course, there's always the library. The book has many photos and drawings from the archives of Billy Haines Interiors, with rooms and houses done for many Hollywood celebrities. Well, well worth your time, trust me. Here's a jacket photo - that's Joan Crawford with Haines - and a link to the Amazon page:
If you want to go cross-eyed with delight, there is a recent book on Billy Haines' career and designs you should seek out. It's called Class Act: William Haines, Legendary Hollywood Decorator; I reviewed it for Modernism a few issues back. Author is Peter Schifando, publisher is Pointed Leaf Press. Not cheap at $95 list price, but Amazon has deals that cut that nearly in half, and of course, there's always the library. The book has many photos and drawings from the archives of Billy Haines Interiors, with rooms and houses done for many Hollywood celebrities. Well, well worth your time, trust me. Here's a jacket photo - that's Joan Crawford with Haines - and a link to the Amazon page:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Thanks, Sandy! Looks like a great book. I'll definitely get a copy. I've read that his interiors were amazing, but I haven't seen much of his design work.
I read a great Haines biography called 'Wisecracker' a few years ago. I'm not recalling the author; but at any rate, it covered a lot of what went on back in the mid-1920's to the mid-1930's in Hollywood.
Haines' acting looks very stagy and over-the-top by today's standards, but he was a huge star for a couple of years, between 1927-1930.
I read a great Haines biography called 'Wisecracker' a few years ago. I'm not recalling the author; but at any rate, it covered a lot of what went on back in the mid-1920's to the mid-1930's in Hollywood.
Haines' acting looks very stagy and over-the-top by today's standards, but he was a huge star for a couple of years, between 1927-1930.
danemodsandy
Well-known member
Frigilux:
If you want to see William Haines at his best, you should try to see Show People, a 1928 silent comedy about Hollywood. Marion Davies is his co-star, and a lot of then-current stars have cameo roles as themselves. My Amazon review of Show People can be seen at:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2I5QDRJSMVU8Q
William Mann's Wisecracker is a book about which I have very serious reservations; Mann resorted to some speculation to cover up a distasteful and controversial episode in Haines's history, which a biographer should not do. My Amazon review of that book tells you more. At the very least, I think Wisecracker should be read in conjunction with Class Act, because Wisecracker gives very little information about Haines's decorating career, which he pursued for many, many more years than he ever did movie acting, and for which he became far better known. Here's my Amazon review of Wisecracker:
If you want to see William Haines at his best, you should try to see Show People, a 1928 silent comedy about Hollywood. Marion Davies is his co-star, and a lot of then-current stars have cameo roles as themselves. My Amazon review of Show People can be seen at:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2I5QDRJSMVU8Q
William Mann's Wisecracker is a book about which I have very serious reservations; Mann resorted to some speculation to cover up a distasteful and controversial episode in Haines's history, which a biographer should not do. My Amazon review of that book tells you more. At the very least, I think Wisecracker should be read in conjunction with Class Act, because Wisecracker gives very little information about Haines's decorating career, which he pursued for many, many more years than he ever did movie acting, and for which he became far better known. Here's my Amazon review of Wisecracker:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
danemodsandy
Well-known member
P.S.:
Frigilux:
Here is a Billy Haines interior for his good friend, Joan Crawford. Joan bought this Brentwood, California house in the late 1920s, at which time it was a Spanish Colonial-style house of no particular distinction. Haines transformed it with English furniture and architectural details, mixed with Hollywood moderne furniture he designed himself. Joan loved Haines's work so much she kept commissioning interiors from him all her life; he did the New York penthouse she lived in while married to Alfred Steele, president of Pepsi-Cola. When Steele died (a misfortune that nearly bankrupted Joan; he'd gone into serious hock for the penthouse), Joan selected furnishings from the penthouse and had Haines create her last homes, both in a New York City co-op building called Imperial House, on East 69th Street. Joan started out in a nine-room unit, but later downsized to five rooms. Here's a photo of Joan's Brentwood living room (the amoeba-shaped bench in front of the fireplace, which Haines designed, was fuschia), and a link to some photos of her other homes:
Frigilux:
Here is a Billy Haines interior for his good friend, Joan Crawford. Joan bought this Brentwood, California house in the late 1920s, at which time it was a Spanish Colonial-style house of no particular distinction. Haines transformed it with English furniture and architectural details, mixed with Hollywood moderne furniture he designed himself. Joan loved Haines's work so much she kept commissioning interiors from him all her life; he did the New York penthouse she lived in while married to Alfred Steele, president of Pepsi-Cola. When Steele died (a misfortune that nearly bankrupted Joan; he'd gone into serious hock for the penthouse), Joan selected furnishings from the penthouse and had Haines create her last homes, both in a New York City co-op building called Imperial House, on East 69th Street. Joan started out in a nine-room unit, but later downsized to five rooms. Here's a photo of Joan's Brentwood living room (the amoeba-shaped bench in front of the fireplace, which Haines designed, was fuschia), and a link to some photos of her other homes:
One Can See Interiors Done By Mr. Haines
On the website posted above to his design firm.
The photograph shown above with Miss. Crawford is there as well.
On the website posted above to his design firm.
The photograph shown above with Miss. Crawford is there as well.
In light of Crawford's horrific treatment of her adopted daughter as depicted in "Mommie Dearest", there's something really creepy about Crawford's Goody Twoshoes portrayal of a mother beset with an evil, ungrateful daughter of her own in "Mildred Pierce"...
I wonder if Crawford had a hand in writing the script...
I wonder if Crawford had a hand in writing the script...
danemodsandy
Well-known member
Suds:
Mildred Pierce was taken from a novel by James M. Cain; the adaptation was done by a Warner Bros. writer named Ranald MacDougall. The major change from book to movie was the addition of Monte Beragon's murder by Veda.
I'd like to point out that the problems between Joan and Christina were commented upon by Joan's long-time secretary, Betty Barker, who said, "Oh, Joan was wilful, and Christina was wilful, and they just clashed."
Sometimes parents and children are mismatched in terms of temperament, something that happens even with people's natural children. In cases of adoption, I would suppose that the chance of a mismatch might be somewhat higher. Joan was a very busy, very hard-working movie star; having kids who got into scrapes that could cause gossipy newspaper stories (Christina's experimentation with a boy; Christopher's running away) must have driven Joan up the wall. She was not getting any younger; remaining a movie star was getting harder with each passing year. She needed problems at home like she needed a hole in the head.
None of that excuses abuse in any way, shape, form or fashion, but it should be remembered that in the late '40s and early '50s, there were none of today's counselling resources; Joan was on her own as far as handling rebellious kids was concerned. She did a very poor job of it, but I was a '50s kid myself, and I'm here to tell you that a lot of parents made a poor job of it. Most of us have forgotten, forgiven and moved on. Christina doesn't seem to have done that.
Mildred Pierce was taken from a novel by James M. Cain; the adaptation was done by a Warner Bros. writer named Ranald MacDougall. The major change from book to movie was the addition of Monte Beragon's murder by Veda.
I'd like to point out that the problems between Joan and Christina were commented upon by Joan's long-time secretary, Betty Barker, who said, "Oh, Joan was wilful, and Christina was wilful, and they just clashed."
Sometimes parents and children are mismatched in terms of temperament, something that happens even with people's natural children. In cases of adoption, I would suppose that the chance of a mismatch might be somewhat higher. Joan was a very busy, very hard-working movie star; having kids who got into scrapes that could cause gossipy newspaper stories (Christina's experimentation with a boy; Christopher's running away) must have driven Joan up the wall. She was not getting any younger; remaining a movie star was getting harder with each passing year. She needed problems at home like she needed a hole in the head.
None of that excuses abuse in any way, shape, form or fashion, but it should be remembered that in the late '40s and early '50s, there were none of today's counselling resources; Joan was on her own as far as handling rebellious kids was concerned. She did a very poor job of it, but I was a '50s kid myself, and I'm here to tell you that a lot of parents made a poor job of it. Most of us have forgotten, forgiven and moved on. Christina doesn't seem to have done that.
First, the book MP was different in that the heroine climbed the business ladder by sleeping her way up.
Second, regarding Miss. Crawford's treatment of her children, it should be noted it wasn't like she gave birth to them, but sought out priviate adoptions that were of the "no questions asked" sort that only persons with means and power could have arranged. There was no court oversight nor even routine investigations into the Crawford home nor the woman's fittness for "motherhood".
Just as many women who have children by natural or other means, Miss. Crawford soon found out infants and wee children are NOT little dolls or show things, but real humans with minds and emotions of their own. It seemed (at least from what one read and has heard), that things went on well long as the children did what JC wanted and expected them to do, when that didn't happen there was hell to pay, and usually the children suffered.
Film star or not, JC was a unmarried and middle aged woman, with a career and lifestyle not all would think made a proper household for children.
Second, regarding Miss. Crawford's treatment of her children, it should be noted it wasn't like she gave birth to them, but sought out priviate adoptions that were of the "no questions asked" sort that only persons with means and power could have arranged. There was no court oversight nor even routine investigations into the Crawford home nor the woman's fittness for "motherhood".
Just as many women who have children by natural or other means, Miss. Crawford soon found out infants and wee children are NOT little dolls or show things, but real humans with minds and emotions of their own. It seemed (at least from what one read and has heard), that things went on well long as the children did what JC wanted and expected them to do, when that didn't happen there was hell to pay, and usually the children suffered.
Film star or not, JC was a unmarried and middle aged woman, with a career and lifestyle not all would think made a proper household for children.
westyslantfront
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2004
- Messages
- 1,718
Too bad Joan did not use any of her Mommie Dearest routines on Veda. She certainly deserved to get beat with a wire hanger.
Ross
Ross
At The Time
There was some noise that the film MP was an indictment on the sort of "spare the rod......" parenting just starting to take hold. This theory would lead up to Dr.Spock whom many then and now blame on letting children "run riot". *LOL*
Personally the day I let any child of mine slap me so hard I get knocked down, is also the day you would see me on the evening news. *LOL*
Carol Burnett's "MP" sketch really captures the essence of the film. MP isn't a bad woman, just one trying to do the best she can with the lot she has been landed with.
Mildred certianly wasn't the first woman in history to look around her household and decide it was short a pair of B***Ls, and did something about it. Her problem was, and is common to many women, her love of her children and trying to make up for affection with things.
Had Vida been a boy, MP probably would have pushed, scrimped, hustled and so forth to get him into the best schools, college and launch his career, but in 1940's USA, there was only so far woman could go.
There was some noise that the film MP was an indictment on the sort of "spare the rod......" parenting just starting to take hold. This theory would lead up to Dr.Spock whom many then and now blame on letting children "run riot". *LOL*
Personally the day I let any child of mine slap me so hard I get knocked down, is also the day you would see me on the evening news. *LOL*
Carol Burnett's "MP" sketch really captures the essence of the film. MP isn't a bad woman, just one trying to do the best she can with the lot she has been landed with.
Mildred certianly wasn't the first woman in history to look around her household and decide it was short a pair of B***Ls, and did something about it. Her problem was, and is common to many women, her love of her children and trying to make up for affection with things.
Had Vida been a boy, MP probably would have pushed, scrimped, hustled and so forth to get him into the best schools, college and launch his career, but in 1940's USA, there was only so far woman could go.
danemodsandy
Well-known member
Launderess:
I'm not excusing Crawford in any way, don't get me wrong. Christina was probably a Georgia Tann baby (Google Ms. Tann's name if you're not familiar with that scandal), and you're quite right that Christina was probably placed on a "no questions asked" basis.
Joan was also quite mistaken in her feeling that she could handle childrearing responsibilities on top of everything else she had going on.
But once the dimensions of that mistake became apparent, Joan had very little help available. Psychiatry and psychology were ery imperfect disciplines at that point (still are), and Joan could not afford for the public to know that she'd tried anything like that. Joan was also an alcoholic at that point (she later quit cold turkey) and there wasn't a great deal of help for that either - there was A.A., but anything that would have leaked Joan's presence in that programme would have been career suicide. Once Joan found out that babies aren't cute and cuddly forever, she was locked into an ongoing battle with children who weren't cut out for life with a reigning star.
Joan herself summed it up best: "We (movie stars of Joan's generation) shouldn't have had children. We really shouldn't have had puppies." And Joan's good friend Helen Hayes had something to add: "Joan tried to be many things to many people. I just wish she hadn't tried to be a mother."
There was definitely child abuse going on - the witnesses are that deep. But Joan made a mistake that lots of people make - how many people conceive a child when they're nowhere near ready to have one? And Christina may not have been entirely blameless - Myrna Loy (with whom Christina worked in a tour of Barefoot in the Park) had plenty to say about the younger Miss Crawford's behaviour in her theatre days. A difficult kid and a high-strung mom are an unfortunate - and unfortunately common - combination.
Both women were trapped in a situation that should never have existed, you're quite right about that. But who in 1939, when Christina was placed with Joan, knew what risks were being run? It looked like a little Tennessee girl born under questionable circumstances was getting a chance at a great life. No one foresaw the demons that would pop up later. And when those demons did pop up, no one knew quite what to do about them.
I'm not excusing Crawford in any way, don't get me wrong. Christina was probably a Georgia Tann baby (Google Ms. Tann's name if you're not familiar with that scandal), and you're quite right that Christina was probably placed on a "no questions asked" basis.
Joan was also quite mistaken in her feeling that she could handle childrearing responsibilities on top of everything else she had going on.
But once the dimensions of that mistake became apparent, Joan had very little help available. Psychiatry and psychology were ery imperfect disciplines at that point (still are), and Joan could not afford for the public to know that she'd tried anything like that. Joan was also an alcoholic at that point (she later quit cold turkey) and there wasn't a great deal of help for that either - there was A.A., but anything that would have leaked Joan's presence in that programme would have been career suicide. Once Joan found out that babies aren't cute and cuddly forever, she was locked into an ongoing battle with children who weren't cut out for life with a reigning star.
Joan herself summed it up best: "We (movie stars of Joan's generation) shouldn't have had children. We really shouldn't have had puppies." And Joan's good friend Helen Hayes had something to add: "Joan tried to be many things to many people. I just wish she hadn't tried to be a mother."
There was definitely child abuse going on - the witnesses are that deep. But Joan made a mistake that lots of people make - how many people conceive a child when they're nowhere near ready to have one? And Christina may not have been entirely blameless - Myrna Loy (with whom Christina worked in a tour of Barefoot in the Park) had plenty to say about the younger Miss Crawford's behaviour in her theatre days. A difficult kid and a high-strung mom are an unfortunate - and unfortunately common - combination.
Both women were trapped in a situation that should never have existed, you're quite right about that. But who in 1939, when Christina was placed with Joan, knew what risks were being run? It looked like a little Tennessee girl born under questionable circumstances was getting a chance at a great life. No one foresaw the demons that would pop up later. And when those demons did pop up, no one knew quite what to do about them.
Thanks for the bio on Norma Shearer; I always wondered what happened to her after Thalberg died.
Christina may have been a difficult adult in the theatre, but I would place most of the blame for that on her upbringing with Crawford. I just don't think kids are born wilful - it's something that they develop in response to their environment - usually that provided by their parent(s). I'm surprised Christina didn't wind up in the loony bin.
Crawford to me was simply a selfish, self-centered, and neurotic woman whose career meant more to her than anything else. It's certain she shouldn't ever have adopted children - she seemed incapable of reasonable parenthood.
It doesn't matter to me if Christina was born in a Memphis whorehouse. She was a human being and really didn't deserve the lifetime of physical and psychological abuse she suffered at the hands of the great diva.
Sometimes I envy the children of the wealthy, but then I realize that the wealthier the parents the more power they have over their children, for good or for bad. In Crawford's case, it was for bad.
Crawford to me was simply a selfish, self-centered, and neurotic woman whose career meant more to her than anything else. It's certain she shouldn't ever have adopted children - she seemed incapable of reasonable parenthood.
It doesn't matter to me if Christina was born in a Memphis whorehouse. She was a human being and really didn't deserve the lifetime of physical and psychological abuse she suffered at the hands of the great diva.
Sometimes I envy the children of the wealthy, but then I realize that the wealthier the parents the more power they have over their children, for good or for bad. In Crawford's case, it was for bad.
Remember Also In Those Days
Declaring a mother "unfit" was tantamount to calling her a whore or tramp. Women rarely lost their children unless they were either VERY bad towards them indeed, and or powerless to prevent some sort of the "law" from doing what it wanted.
After JC had one then the other child placed with her, it would have been nearly impossible to remove them without scandal. Every woman in the USA would have put two and two together, so basically the children were "stuck" with their mother.
Declaring a mother "unfit" was tantamount to calling her a whore or tramp. Women rarely lost their children unless they were either VERY bad towards them indeed, and or powerless to prevent some sort of the "law" from doing what it wanted.
After JC had one then the other child placed with her, it would have been nearly impossible to remove them without scandal. Every woman in the USA would have put two and two together, so basically the children were "stuck" with their mother.
danemodsandy
Well-known member
Suds and Launderess:
I think it's important to remember two things about the Joan/Christina saga:
1) Joan was herself an abused child, regularly beaten and from a family of drifters no better than they had to be. Abuse is a cycle, and with the best will and the best help in the world, it is a difficult cycle to break.
2) The 1940s and 1950s were not our era, not by a long shot. It was absolutely unheard-of to discuss "family problems" even with fairly close relatives and friends - the social norm then was to keep a lid on everything and present a perfect facade to the world. I well remember the tail end of that era, and when I recall it, it's with shudders.
From today's more enlightened perspective, it's very easy to do some Monday-morning quarterbacking and say what should have been done in this situation. But we were not there, we were not part of that culture.
Joan screwed up, okay? I am not denying that, not for an instant. She did abuse Christina. But that was one story among many - like the abandoned Pickford kids, Ronnie and Roxanne, cut off by Mary when they turned out disappointingly. When last heard from, Ronnie was homeless in Manhattan; Roxanne is dead after years of untreated ill-health. The Pickford mansion, Pickfair, fetched over $5 million (from Lakers owner Jerry Buss) when sold after Mary's death. Ronnie and Roxanne didn't get a dime.
Movie stars really shouldn't have kids - natural or adopted - during the years they're on top. You say that Joan was self-centred, but that's the job description, folks - if you're not self-centred, you probably won't make it as a star. You have to promote yourself and bring yourself to the public's attention ceaselessly. It doesn't leave a lot of time or emotional energy for anyone or anything else, and I have long wished that more stars recognised that.
I have to wonder if today's star adoptions, like those of Angelina Jolie and Madonna, are going to be the fodder for sensational stories in the year 2030 - are those kids' lives as star babies going to be the horror stories of tomorrow? Time will tell.
I think it's important to remember two things about the Joan/Christina saga:
1) Joan was herself an abused child, regularly beaten and from a family of drifters no better than they had to be. Abuse is a cycle, and with the best will and the best help in the world, it is a difficult cycle to break.
2) The 1940s and 1950s were not our era, not by a long shot. It was absolutely unheard-of to discuss "family problems" even with fairly close relatives and friends - the social norm then was to keep a lid on everything and present a perfect facade to the world. I well remember the tail end of that era, and when I recall it, it's with shudders.
From today's more enlightened perspective, it's very easy to do some Monday-morning quarterbacking and say what should have been done in this situation. But we were not there, we were not part of that culture.
Joan screwed up, okay? I am not denying that, not for an instant. She did abuse Christina. But that was one story among many - like the abandoned Pickford kids, Ronnie and Roxanne, cut off by Mary when they turned out disappointingly. When last heard from, Ronnie was homeless in Manhattan; Roxanne is dead after years of untreated ill-health. The Pickford mansion, Pickfair, fetched over $5 million (from Lakers owner Jerry Buss) when sold after Mary's death. Ronnie and Roxanne didn't get a dime.
Movie stars really shouldn't have kids - natural or adopted - during the years they're on top. You say that Joan was self-centred, but that's the job description, folks - if you're not self-centred, you probably won't make it as a star. You have to promote yourself and bring yourself to the public's attention ceaselessly. It doesn't leave a lot of time or emotional energy for anyone or anything else, and I have long wished that more stars recognised that.
I have to wonder if today's star adoptions, like those of Angelina Jolie and Madonna, are going to be the fodder for sensational stories in the year 2030 - are those kids' lives as star babies going to be the horror stories of tomorrow? Time will tell.
brettsomers
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2005
- Messages
- 1,993
You said it, Sandy...
Was Joan a lousy mother? Likely yes. My mother was lousy too. I could spin and dramatise and make her out to be Worst Mother In History. But she wasnt.
Mommie Dearest was one side of the story. Designed to cast the author in a sympathetic light. To say i know the real Joan Crawford from watching Mommie Dearest (or Mildred Pierce) is silly.
Was Joan a lousy mother? Likely yes. My mother was lousy too. I could spin and dramatise and make her out to be Worst Mother In History. But she wasnt.
Mommie Dearest was one side of the story. Designed to cast the author in a sympathetic light. To say i know the real Joan Crawford from watching Mommie Dearest (or Mildred Pierce) is silly.
brettsomers
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2005
- Messages
- 1,993
G.C.P. (gratuitous Crawford picture)
!
!
William Haines - I Love Dat Man!
Just finished reading up on the man, and must say needed a few drinkees to get through it all! *LOL*
I mean talk about scandal! One has to admire someone who lived his life on his terms despite the consequences, including a run in with the Klu Klux Klan!
PBS needs to do a series on Mr. Haines, his story is not too well known.
L.
Just finished reading up on the man, and must say needed a few drinkees to get through it all! *LOL*
I mean talk about scandal! One has to admire someone who lived his life on his terms despite the consequences, including a run in with the Klu Klux Klan!
PBS needs to do a series on Mr. Haines, his story is not too well known.
L.
