Quote:
Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3
Joan wanted to use her own wardrobe and the producers wouldn't let her..I don't think Joan was fug at all ..she had fantastic bone structure and yes she could be a be-yotch .personalitywise I'd say she had a good deal in common with Madonna and understood how to change her image with the times and to manipulate the media .. that is how she managed to survive for so long ..Madonna is better at it though.. she has gotten very far on far less talent than Crawford had .
|
I'm glad you compared Madonna to Crawford, in my head those two have much in common. They are kin, in my head. Which is, medium talent, maximum drive and maximum results. And having the drive to convince people that they are as fabulous as they think they are. That may sound snarky, but that is actually a HUGE talent. To convince others that you are good, and to try to be that good, despite actual limitations, very real limitations, wherein others are better than you but don't have the same drive. That is an unparallelled talent. I don't love it, but it is very real, and very important. In that, mostly others will only think you are as cool as you present yourself to be. Seriously, those chicks are the masters at that.
Like, that is the gift of fire signs, making themselves seem cool to other people, and having the drive to convince others that they are that good. It's like unbridled confidence at it's best. I fully acknowledge that that is a talent in itself.
And that was my whole point with selling her soul, in my opinion, she had very little, and made it into soooo much. An Aries specialty. And you are right about survival. It's true. And though I don't like the people, I admire greatly their perseverence and...I dunno...an insistence that they are good?
To address your points:
Bone structure: Okay, but not super. good though. She certainly doesn't have any super cheekbones.
Fug - I know she could look good, but I never liked her look, ever. But I have no problem with people who think she could look good, cause I can see that in the abstract.
And did I mention her dancing? Have you seen those old flapper films? At this point, that is my favorite thing about her. It's no small feat to be a good dancer. That is probably where most of my respect for her lies.
As an addendum, I read Bette v. Joan, and also just Joans biography, and lots of other stuff about her. Regardless of her performances, it is well known that Joan valued image above other things. And that it could be a deal breaker for her, regardless of the script. That? I don't respect as much. Bette would, and did, wear rags if it was a good role. She would be ugly till the cows came home if she had an opportunity to act her ass off. Bette cared about the script, Joan cared about the clothes. She felt she needed those clothes, or that boob job, or that rich husband. Whereas a more
real actress would just care about the script, and peripherally the wardrobe.
I can't totally get with that. I still admire some of her work, but her entire attitude while being an actress and movie star is anathema to what I think of as acting, or stardom, or at least the small amount of integrity that exists therein.
Strike that, Joan and Madonna are absolutely what I think of when I think of stardom. And other people is who I think of when I think about actual craft, and the love of, and the expert rendition of craft.