Ferocious Ambition

[davidmorrocco]

I just got the new book and can’t put it down. I’m only on page 71. I love the photos and fast paced stories. So far, so good 😊. Hope you all enjoy it as much as I am. 

[davidmorrocco]

I’m now on page 200 and still loving the new book. Plus, TCM has a great lineup of her movies. I’m sure I’ll have sweet dreams of her. A month of Joan.

[davidmorrocco]

I finally finished the book a couple of days ago. I really liked it. It’s one of those books that I wish told me more about Joan Crawford that I already didn’t know. One thing I learned was William Randolph Hearst had a large clout in MGM. I knew about the parties he threw for the movie stars to promote Marion Davies. I even toured the castle. I don’t want to give anything away for those who haven’t read it yet. I hope you enjoy the book as much as I did.

[Admin]

David, I just got my copy a few days ago. Here's my review that I just posted on BOE:

First, kudos to the author and the University Press of Mississippi for this well-researched overview of Joan's life and career (the first major Joan publication since 2009's Joan Crawford: The Enduring Star by Peter Cowie). A professionally published, well-written and annotated bio with good-quality photos is always a welcome addition to the Joan literary canon (and a welcome relief from lower-end Joan bios that invent conversations, give interminable plot summaries, and rely too heavily on anonymous hearsay, as well as a relief from self-published vanity affairs).

Here, Joan's entire professional and personal story is told competently and interestingly, the narrative obviously the result of a great deal of research. The lengthy Notes section lists hundreds of sources for the info that appears in the chapters: Joan- and Hollywood-related autobios and bios, as well as articles from trade and popular publications of Joan's period. Given that almost all sources are secondary rather than primary, there's not much new or surprising info for a longtime Joan fan or scholar, but for the general reader interested in Joan and wanting a concise but detailed account of her life and times during the Hollywood system and beyond, this book is definitely of interest, both for its precise box-office stats and filming details, as well as the info from already published (but still juicy) industry gossip and opinions perhaps not gathered in one place before.

One problem I did have with Ferocious is its schizophrenia re its stated thesis (and title) of Joan's "ferocious ambition" and determination being the reason for her decades-long stardom (as touted by the book's promo material and intro) versus some of the author's statements in the text.

In favor of Joan's own ambition and determination: "Few of us get to be our own Pygmalion, and for those who have managed to do so, none have done it better than Crawford." And "Arnold's magnificent photographs reveal the intelligence, strength---both mental and physical---and most of all, the diligence that made her a star."

But then there's the exact opposite, and overtly old-school sexist, sentiment from the author: "Crawford has a small group to thank for her decades of motion picture success. Rapf, Mayer, Mankiewicz, Hurrell, Adrian, and Gable, and to that list needs to be added Jerry Wald." And "Without these three [Adrian, Hurrell, and Gable] Crawford may never have become one of cinema's iconic figures." And, rather confusingly: "[Crawford] was able to convince a series of influential men that her determination and motivation might be enough to propel her to success in show business." (I say "confusingly" because I highly doubt that any of these men were thinking, "By golly, little Billie has so much determination and motivation! Let's hire her!" Rather, they probably found her sexy and thought the public might do the same and thus make them some money. It was up to "little Billie" to advance herself once these men were done with her.)

Another odd statement: "Had Crawford been wise with her money, like Garbo and Shearer, she might have become wealthy and could have decided to retire, or to make films for the fun of it and not for the salary. But money slipped through Crawford's fingers." First of all, the author, despite his book's promo material, seems to completely miss the point of Crawford's raison d'etre: She obviously loved to work, and she loved being in the public eye. Her innate psychological need obviously had nothing to do with the amount of money in her bank account. Especially given this fact: At the time of her death in May 1977, her estate was valued at $2 million. In today's dollars (https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm), that's $10.5 million. Joan never HAD to work in her later years; she WANTED to. (Re Garbo and Shearer: By the 1940s, they were no longer relevant to the public; I'm sure this was a primary factor in their "retirements." Oh, and Shearer's husband, MGM big-wig Irving Thalberg, died in 1936; what a coincidence that her career petered out upon his death!)

Another factual error in the book: The author says, re Grand Hotel: "...it is doubtful [Crawford and Garbo] crossed paths while the film was in production." Not according to Crawford herself. See the transcript from Town Hall in April 1973, in which she breathlessly describes their meeting. And then there's this nonsensical bit re Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and his awareness, or lack of, wife Joan's affair with Gable: "What seemed to bother Fairbanks Jr. as much as the affair itself was that a favorite trysting place [was a portable dressing room that Fairbanks had bought as a wedding gift for Joan]. He was probably unaware of the new man in his wife's life." --- Well, was Fairbanks aware or not aware of the Gable affair?

Picture-wise, the book is full of good-quality photos, usually placed right in sync with what's going on in the text. The 16-pp centerpiece of full-page glossy photos, though, has no rhyme or reason. No consecutive years, no grouping of photographers. And one blatant error: One publicity photo with Joan and Gable is described as being from "Possessed, 1932." First, the photo is from 1936's "Love on the Run." And even if it were from "Possessed," that movie was released in 1931. Globally, some notable omissions from the photos (probably due to lack of permissions), though written about in the text: No important photos from Eve Arnold, Karsh, or the final 1976 session with Engstead.

Overall, this a sound, serious book from a serious scholar and press. A welcome and competent, though not particularly psychologically insightful or 100% accurate, addition to the Joan literary canon.

[Admin]

Oct 23, 2023 12:37:38 GMT -6 davidmorrocco said:

I finally finished the book a couple of days ago. I really liked it. It’s one of those books that I wish told me more about Joan Crawford that I already didn’t know. One thing I learned was William Randolph Hearst had a large clout in MGM. I knew about the parties he threw for the movie stars to promote Marion Davies. I even toured the castle. I don’t want to give anything away for those who haven’t read it yet. I hope you enjoy the book as much as I did.

I think it was/is a respectable book, well-done, etc. But I didn't really learn anything about Joan that I had not known before. It's hard, though: If you're a long-time Joan fan, then you read it differently than if you're a brand-new fan just trying to learn the basics. (For me, the best books remain Walker's "Ultimate Star" and "Conversations.")