Harriet Craig (1950)

Even Joan Crawford Haters Love this Movie. It is said to be one of the Closest Screen Characters to the Real Joan. At least According to Step-Daughter Christina and some other Tell-Alls, like Director Vincent Sherman. Here Monster Joan is Absolutely Unlikeable in a Role that is Manipulative, Domineering, Controlling, and just Completely Selfish. She Haunts the Palace as a Late Arriving "House" Wife Married more to the Domicile than Husband Wendell Corey.There are some Fine Supporting Performances but all Pale in Comparison to this Banshee Crawford, with Her Helmet-Hairdo and Ridiculous Power Clothes, always Lit Like a Ghostly Apparition with Nary a Smile, all Tight Lipped and Flashing Eyes.There are a Few Short Scenes and Lines of Dialog that are a Half-Hearted Try to Lend some Sympathy to this Partner from Hell, but Her Dark Side is so Powerful and All Encompassing that it is Useless and Barely Register after the House of Cards Tumble. Suffice to Say that when No One is Left Except the Inanimate there will be no Pangs and no Tears for Joan Crawford, that is to say, Harriet Craig.

Harriet Craig (1950) *** (out of 4)Forgotten Columbia film about a wife (Joan Crawford) who cares only about her possessions, her way of life and anything that involves her. Her blind husband (Wendell Corey) soon starts to realize that he's not married to the type of woman he thought he was. HARRIET CRAIG is a film that doesn't get talked about too often when it comes to Crawford but when you step back and look at the work she did starting with MILDRED PIERCE you can't help but call this another winner. As I go through these post-MGM Crawford films I must say that my respect for her continues to grow because she took on all sorts of roles and did a wonderful job at all of them. There's just something so evil and cold about her character here and it's something that perhaps lived inside of the actress. If MOMMIE DEAREST had been written like this film it would have been a masterpiece. If Faye Dunaway's performance was as great as what Crawford delivers here then I think she would have been willing to talk about it. I mention that film because the type of character that film portrays Crawford as is pretty much the type she's playing here. The coldness of this character is something that you'll certainly hate but the constantly lying and the way she puts herself before anything else just makes this one of the most memorable characters out there. What I loved about Crawford's performance is this bubbling evilness that you can feel with her character and you just get the feeling at any second she's willing to make something worse just to benefit herself. Corey also deserves a lot of credit as the husband as he makes for a very sympathetic character. The sequence when everything finally breaks and the two go at it is rather priceless in regards to the brilliance of the acting. The supporting cast includes good performances by Lucile Watson, K.T. Stevens, William Bishop, Ellen Corby and Viola Roache. HARRIET CRAIG is a film that's not often talked about, which is a real shame because Crawford's performance certainly deserves more attention.

Many successful 1940's black and white melodramas revolved around a subjectively bad central character who negatively impacts everyone's lives until punished with just desserts. Joan Crawford superbly plays this central character and does get her just desserts at the final credits. The difference by 1950 is the perceived flaw of subjectively bad character seems ludicrous in a modern light. There are more recent television sitcoms which bust up a seemingly perfect, fruitful relationship merely because one partner rushes over with a dustbuster every time the other eats a muffin. The popular STEPFORD WIVES novel was later made into two successful movies whose premise seems to be sloppy people lazy toward responsibilities are the wronged folks while neat freaks are the psychopaths deserving to be punished. Should you accept this premise HARRIET CRAIG is a terrific movie as well as an historical reference of early fifties' movie styles and Joan Crawford's professional development by that time. If you don't, this is a well made movie whose premise may not seem sufficiently logical to build grand melodrama.

...and hence one of her most fun movies, as we get to see her indicate, indicate, indicate. As a cruelly controlling housewife married more to her house than her husband (the peerlessly dull Wendell Corey), she scarcely raises an eyebrow or changes her tight-lipped expression to convey all the inner demons she's struggling to smother. All the other characters are given lines about how beautiful she is, but with some unflattering 1950 gowns and hairstyles, she looks mannish and undesirable, and when Corey, who is supposed to be very much in love with her, kisses her, he looks, all script indications to the contrary, vaguely disgusted. George (uncle of Grace) Kelly's Pulitzer-winning play has been refashioned to make Harriet even more selfish than she was in the 1936 Rosalind Russell version, and Joan seems to relish the havoc she wreaks--browbeating Ellen Corby, Lucille Watson (in the sort of sly-old-broad role she did better than anybody), and the annoying boy next door, among legions of others. Some cheap psychologizing at the finale attempts to explain Harriet, but it's a surfacey melodrama with an unmemorable supporting cast. The main supporting player is, in fact, the house, which is certainly a stunner--that breakfast nook is the size of my living room--and its contents, including a Ming vase that is so commented upon by everybody that you just know it won't be in one piece by the fadeout. Nor is anybody who battles Joan.