It’s not really a biography. But is it essential?
Written: Sep 13 '06 (Updated Sep 14 '06)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: Well-written
Cons: Not really biographical, can be libelous- thanks basesurge- contains some sexual claims that don't belong
The Bottom Line: Joan Crawford: The Essential Biography tries to be so much, but it falls flat.
|
|
|
| amelia_walpole's Full Review: Lawrence J. Quirk and William Schoell - Joan Crawf... |
I have half-mixed, half-negative feelings about this book. It is not entirely a personal biography about the life of Joan Crawford. It’s rather a biography of her movies, which these days one might call a “filmography.” But there is more to it than that; otherwise the hardback book wouldn’t be 304 pages long. It’s also a flimsy attempt to save the reputation of Joan Crawford, which has been significantly smeared since her adopted daughter published her famous tell-all in 1978. What’s more, we the readers are treated to some rather questionable but juicy details about the personal life of Crawford that really haven’t been revealed before. Are they true? Do they make for compelling reading?
What is this book trying to be?
Joan Crawford: The Essential Biography
Lawrence J. Quirk and William Schoell are the authors responsible for this book. Both have written many biographies and historical essays before. It’s unfortunate that my introduction to their work was this book, as I am not so sure that I wish to explore their other works now that I have experienced this one.
As I mentioned before, there is some biographical information present but this is not a full “biography” in the sense of the word. The book starts out with Joan’s birth and races, over three short pages, through her childhood in San Antonio and Kansas City. On pages two and three, before Joan is even 13 years old, we are treated to the first of many sensational claims (mostly sexual in nature) about her behavior. I want so much to spill the beans here, but I’d be an irresponsible reviewer if I did. All I can say is this: I’ve never heard these claims before, or many of the others that the authors make, and I’ve read several decent biographies on Crawford. Perhaps she really did do what they say she did. Quirk and Schoell did not write this book from the middle of the fence. Every fact they state, every claim they make, is presented very plainly with no room for question. Neither author admits that their information might be incorrect, or that Joan “might” have done this or “could have” done that. No, it’s either “yes she did” or “no she didn’t.”
One aspect that stands out in this publication is the apparent desire of the authors to redeem and defend Joan Crawford. Quirk wastes no time in the preface: “I knew Joan Crawford for thirty years,” he claims. He then goes on to describe the occasional meetings he had with the legendary actress over that period of time. Now I could be wrong, but when someone claims that they “knew someone for thirty years,” I take it to mean that they were close to that person. Quirk mentions only three occasions when he was in direct contact with Crawford. I feel a bit mean-spirited in thinking this, but such contact doesn’t make him an expert on Joan Crawford. Take Quirk’s words at face value and they don’t make him a personal friend of hers.
Quirk and Schoell do their share of Christina Crawford-bashing. In fact, they dismiss most of the negative claims that have been made about her over time (and not just by Christina herself). They take every opportunity they can to defend Joan, to justify her actions and explain away the accusations of her “enemies.” Usually I want my biographies to be impartial, but biased authors do not an even-handed biography make.
Or something like that.
We continue through Joan’s early life, reaching her college years by page five. By the time she’s an MGM player, we’re on page 8 and the book has switched gears. We’re getting detailed accounts of her experiences on movie sets. Rarely are we given further insight into her personal life when it has nothing to do with the film she’s working on at the time. I will give Quirk and Schoell credit for their writing, which is very descriptive and easy to follow. The details they illustrate about Joan and her experiences with each film she works on are incredible…maybe a little too incredible. Both authors sound as though they were right there through the experiences with Joan, observing her performances in front of the camera and peeking into her bedroom window at home. How could they both know so much? As clear as the details are, the book almost plays out like a fictional story. Rarely do biographical authors know their subjects THIS well.
One of my favorite parts of the book regards Joan and the search for Scarlet O’Hara, the legendary role that would eventually go to the amazing Vivien Leigh. Joan, who carried on affairs with Clark Gable over many years, had already worked with him by the time Gone With the Wind started production. While Quirk and Schoell don’t dare take shots at Vivien Leigh (good thing…), they do say in so many words that Joan would have made a good- if not better- Scarlet O’Hara. As talented as Crawford was, that’s almost laughable. It seems to be just another example of the authors grabbing whatever excuse they can to paint Joan Crawford in a positive light.
Basically this is a glorified filmography, with extensive details about Joan’s life on the set before, during, and after working on a film. In between such details, we’re treated to deep but brief descriptions of her sexual adventures and almost constant vilification of those who showed her unkindness, including Joan’s own mother and brother. I can’t fault Quirk and Schoell for being bad writers, because they aren’t. It’s the content of the book that I don’t like. So in regards to the question I asked at the very beginning, is this truly an essential book? If you’re looking for a fair, balanced biography, I would have to say no. Joan Crawford: The Essential Biography IS interesting reading. I cannot deny that. But this book tries to be too many things and contradicts itself. I think, above all, two authors wanted to write a favorable narrative about an actress who is remembered more for her issues with wire hangers than her rise to the top as Hollywood’s first Screen Queen.
And then there are the graphic details of Joan’s sexual escapades from a young age.
I just can’t keep up.
Recommended:
No
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
amelia_walpole
|
|
Member: Alisha M
Location: Arkansas, USA
Reviews written: 21
Trusted by: 9 members
About Me:
A touch of magic in a world obsessed with science.
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.