MovieChat Forums > The Women (1939) Discussion > Joan Crawford...I don't see it

Joan Crawford...I don't see it

posted 11 years ago by bcubedgirl
31 replies | jump to latest

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as the say. In my opinion Joan Crawford was not cute. I suppose she had the art of seduction on her side but when I first saw this movie and Crystal was revealed, my first thought was "This lady looks rough and a little too old to be a perfume girl." She looked like the aunt of the ladies she worked with. Maybe it was the hair? Her face was harsh and in the bathtub scene where she gets angry, she looked down right creepy... Like she was morphing into a man. I'm not looking at her based on the dispicable character she played. I'm just wondering how is she considered a great beauty. Other than that, I thought her acting was superb. And by the way, I'm not trying to be mean. No ones perfect. I just didn't think her looks matched the role.

[–] craighenderson-925-318178 10 years ago

Joan Crawford's face always reminds me of the first line of Margaret Mitchell's "Gone With the Wind." "Scarlet had an arresting face. Not a pretty face, but an interesting face." Something that generates interest can be sexier than prettiness.

[–] hodie1 9 years ago

Stephen Haines would have stayes with "Rain" Joan Crawford without giving Mary another thought. Joan sizzled as Sadie Thompson. She always did have big,beautiful eyes, but they were played up more when she was a younger woman.

[–] hodie1 9 years ago

*stayed. Phone won't let me edit my posts here.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TrentinaNE 9 years ago

"Scarlet O'Hara was not beautiful, but men seldom realized it when caught by her charm as the Tarleton twins were. In her face were too sharply blended the delicate features of her mother, a Coast aristocrat of French descent, and the heavy ones of her florid Irish father. But it was an arresting face, pointed of chin, square of jaw. Her eyes were pale green without a touch of hazel, starred with bristly black lashes and slightly tilted at the ends. Above them, her thick black brows slanted upward, cutting a startling oblique line in her magnolia-white skin-that skin so prized by Southern women and so carefully guarded with bonnets, veils and mittens against hot Georgia suns."

I always took this to mean that Scarlett WAS pretty, but not classically beautiful.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dabukaba 9 years ago

Apparently I'm the only one (!), but I thought she was very pretty in this -- she had an exotic kind of beauty, if that makes sense. I didn't think she was "mannish" at all. As for her hairstyle, I thought it looked great on her, and also went with the times, which might account for why today's viewers find it unattractive. I saw her in THE HOLLYWOOD REVUE OF 1929 from 10 years earlier, and actually thought she didn't look as good as in THE WOMEN. Actually I think Crawford in 1939 was very similar-looking to an actress from years later -- Maureen O'Hara, like in THE PARENT TRAP (1961) (hairstyle included). Norma Sheerer was pretty in a more soft, graceful way, but I still felt Joan Crawford was more attractive here. It appears I'm the first guy to add to this thread, by the way. (BTW this movie was excellent -- long-live the great classics!)
I think the standard of beauty has changed a lot, though. Women considered beautiful in years long gone could have some curves or volume (think Marilyn Monroe for example), and didn't look anorexic like today's supermodels. (Though there were exceptions to this.) Personally I find that more attractive than a skeleton walking down a catwalk.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] trimmerb1234 9 years ago

Joan Crawford is brilliant. Gold-digging cold-calculating husband-stealers - that is what the character was - are not necessarily beauties. Underlying was an implicit contrast between the very nice Mrs Haines, and Crystal which nearly all wives and husbands in the audience would have assumed. Remember that this is the 1930s and things were very different. The very nicely brought up Mrs Haines might well have been a "maid in the living room and a cook in the kitchen" but elsewhere her menu was most likely have been rather limited and "Steven" open to temptation by exotic fare elsewhere. A marriage based on untempered frank honesty comes up against sweet-talking falsity. We never actually see Crystal's man-pleasing side only her everyday mean calculating face or cornered, revealed for what she is: horrible, defiant in the face of her enemies, red in tooth and claw. Nobody could possibly have been better cast.

[–] bcubedgirl 9 years ago

Very good description Trimmerb and thank you. I totally agree with your analysis. This is now one of my favorite movies and I catch different little nuances every time I watch it. Ms. Joan was a good choice for that character but I was taken aback the first time I watched it. She is one scary lady in that role which is a credit to her acting.

[–] yunie1281 9 years ago

I think a lot of it was how awful the character was. She was cruel and mercenary and even in her 'softer' moment with Stephen she was shown to be blatantly manipulating him. And her awful outfit in the confrontation with Mrs. Haines...

She wasn't ugly by any means but I think she'd be prettier if she was less awful.

[–] blondee661 9 years ago

Don't me wrong, I'm a die hard Crawford fan but I never found her to be a drop dead beauty, but like others have mentioned she doesn't look her best in this movie. I think its her hairdo, doesn't quite work. But like others have mentioned too, Crawford definitely have captivating eyes and sometimes thats enough.

[–] denis-38 9 years ago

A woman (or a man for that matter) doesn't need to be conventionally "beautiful" to be appealing and seductive. Or good in bed. Crystal, the character, was clearly seductive and knew what men liked. She seemed well cast. It was a rather ugly time in fashion and hair, however. Look at what poor Norma Shearer had to endure from MGM's "magicians." Worst. Hairstyle. Ever.

Crawford could be very beautiful, very striking, especially when she was younger. It was a strong face with prominent structure. Even in dewy youth, her looks might have been considered too strong for those who preferred a more delicate type.

As she matured, the structure of her face seemed to leap into further prominence, and she favored a heavier make-up. The enormous eyes were matched by an enormous mouth! She was still attractive, but with a far more dominant (dominatrix?) vibe. Her 1950s look was particularly unnerving and artificial, but she kept a good, firm body and even while critics of the time began to note her lack of softness or traditional femininity, fans admired JC's persistence to her lacquered glamor.