Recent discussion of Bette Davis and Joan Crawford, in the context of the TV miniseries FEUD that retells the story of their considerable personal conflict, brings up thoughts of Crawford’s signature movie, MILDRED PIERCE (1945).
It is remarkable just how much Crawford’s reputation rests, today, on this one film. Sure, she made other famous ones, both as an A-list star and later as an unenthusiastic participant in horror movies, but this is the one she’s remembered for, the one that most people who can remember her at all can still name. (I am not talking about freaks of nature like you and me.) Really, she’s more famous today for having been an abusive mother and a hellacious pain in the ass as co-star.
Directed by Michael Curtiz (CASABLANCA, THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD) from one of the three best-known novels by noir writer James M. Cain (DOUBLE INDEMNITY, THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE), it is a very effective showcase for Crawford’s particular acting style, which here manifests as being heavy on the suffering. Her Oscar is for this film.
It’s the story of the put-upon matron of the title, who rises from post-divorce poverty to start a wildly successful chicken-and-waffles chain, only to be undone by the antics of an ungrateful and self-centered daughter.
And here’s the thing: it’s a broken and compromised film.
The movie ultimately involves Mildred confessing to a murder she’s committed to protect her daughter. It’s her last act of maternal love: she is willing to go to prison, give up everything she has, on behalf of that little bitch. But, even in this classic film, it feels wrong; feels like a shortcut, somehow. It doesn’t work except as an artificial way to wrap up the story. It’s hasty. False.
The reason, you’ll find out if you read Cain’s powerful novel (or see the splendid HBO five-hour miniseries of MILDRED PIERCE, which starred Kate Winslet and has the running time to tell the story that was between pages), is that this is not the way the story actually goes. There is no actual murder in the novel MILDRED PIERCE; just a continued series of desperate efforts, on Mildred’s part, to buy her nearly sociopathic daughter’s love. Veda is a splendid user, who continues to shower her mother with scorn only to reward her with little scraps of affection whenever she gets what she wants. In the end, she loses her restaurant chain, loses her fortune, loses her pride in herself, and ultimately even her own adoration of the young lady in question upon realizing that’s she’s been used (and betrayed) one last time, in exchange for the one last bit of advantage Veda could squeeze from her. The novel ends with Mildred finally saying, “To hell with her. Let’s get blotto.” – Not a happy ending at all, since the woman is ruined and, it’s strongly implied, headed for a future that offers nothing but alcoholism and self-pity.
The book is about something, the portrait of a mother bound by love to a daughter who loves her not at all, and who indeed hates her for their reduced circumstances following her father’s departure. There’s an element of social commentary as well, namely that in her daughter’s eyes, every remarkable thing Mildred does to provide for her – including the establishment of the chicken-and-waffles chain, from almost nothing – continues to mark the older woman as a low-class embarrassment. The movie, telling the same story until it no longer has time to proceed along the book’s narrative beats, is about how much Joan can suffer, about how much we can feel for her as she suffers.
To see MILDRED PIERCE the movie as your introduction to the story, and to then read the novel or to see the Kate Winslet version and discover for the first time what it’s really about, is to clap your forehead and say, “Ohhhhhh. So that’s what it’s about!” Or rather, “Wow, it’s about something!”
Really. The movie is considered a classic, but I suspect few people see it nowadays. It’s a fine showcase for Crawford, but it’s also a hobbled and clipped thing, a compromise with much better source material. I urge everyone reading these words to the text or to Winslet, and these thoughts ultimately bring me back to Joan Crawford, haranguing her own children, making compromise after compromise to hold on to what she considered her rightful fame. How ironic is it that this should be the movie that remains her wobbly greatest claim to immortality!
Comment By: John A Miller
March 15th, 2019 at 12:22 pm
Your review and explanations were awesome. I watched the old movie version and loved it. I was then excited to see the new min-series version. Unfortunately, I was shocked at the completely different version of the story. I googled and found your site. Very informative! They were very different stories for sure, and each were entertaining. Thanks for your info.