Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarky Oracle!" data-source="post: 437685" data-attributes="member: 57984">I was thinking something similarly myself: Crawford&#039;s career pieces have aged awfully well. I recently realized that I own more films of Crawford than I even do Bette&#039;s. (And more than I do Stanwyck or Hepburn). Many of Joan&#039;s MGM work I&#039;ve sidestepped, and I shouldn&#039;t have.Bette Davis had variety, &quot;versatility&quot; by Golden Age standards. But Bette was no Meryl. Davis ultimately slipped into monstrously-monotonous self-parody. And the viewer can tell, at least with the passage of time, that Bette&#039;s bark was clearly worse than her bite.Crawford, on the other hand, was an ongoing spectacle of psychiatric dysfunction that repeated with nearly every movie, her will to survive and persevere front-and-center at all times, punctuated with noir lighting.Bette was &quot;the bitch&quot; of Hollywood and, as such, seemed the scariest when I was a kid; Crawford, I found just slightly boring.Today, Davis&#039; routine seems thin and tinny and a bit pantomimed (even in her best pictures). She&#039;s sometimes a lazy actress. But Joan Crawford works harder, is in the moment more thoroughly, and resonates deeper and darker now.Bette&#039;s shtick is entertaining, a tornado of momentary fury. Yet it&#039;s Joan who seems to have emerged from a bog, with layers of pathology and lies, lasting trauma and infernal torment.<img src="https://c8.alamy.com/comp/HD64MA/the-sixth-sense-joan-crawford-dear-joan-were-going-to-scare-you-to-HD64MA.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="width: 869px" />Public sadist, private masochist; public masochist, private sadist...<img src="https://static0.colliderimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/bette-davis_joan-crawford_whatever-happened-to-baby-jane-1962.jpg?q=49&amp;fit=crop&amp;w=825&amp;dpr=2" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarky Oracle!, post: 437685, member: 57984"] I was thinking something similarly myself: Crawford's career pieces have aged awfully well. I recently realized that I own more films of Crawford than I even do Bette's. (And more than I do Stanwyck or Hepburn). Many of Joan's MGM work I've sidestepped, and I shouldn't have. Bette Davis had variety, "versatility" by Golden Age standards. But Bette was no Meryl. Davis ultimately slipped into monstrously-monotonous self-parody. And the viewer can tell, at least with the passage of time, that Bette's bark was clearly worse than her bite. Crawford, on the other hand, was an ongoing spectacle of psychiatric dysfunction that repeated with nearly every movie, her will to survive and persevere front-and-center at all times, punctuated with noir lighting. Bette was "the bitch" of Hollywood and, as such, seemed the scariest when I was a kid; Crawford, I found just slightly boring. Today, Davis' routine seems thin and tinny and a bit pantomimed (even in her best pictures). She's sometimes a lazy actress. But Joan Crawford works harder, is in the moment more thoroughly, and resonates deeper and darker now. Bette's shtick is entertaining, a tornado of momentary fury. Yet it's Joan who seems to have emerged from a bog, with layers of pathology and lies, lasting trauma and infernal torment. [IMG width="869px"]https://c8.alamy.com/comp/HD64MA/the-sixth-sense-joan-crawford-dear-joan-were-going-to-scare-you-to-HD64MA.jpg[/IMG] [I]Public sadist, private masochist; public masochist, private sadist...[/I] [IMG]https://static0.colliderimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/bette-davis_joan-crawford_whatever-happened-to-baby-jane-1962.jpg?q=49&fit=crop&w=825&dpr=2[/IMG] [/QUOTE]

Verification

Who played JR Ewing?