Jump to content
Shane91

Feud (2017) First look at Jessica Lange as Joan Crawford

Recommended Posts

Another great find! Thanks for sharing it. :D

One of the great things about "Feud" and it's mostly positive subsequent reception is all these long-forgotten (-buried? -hidden? whichever is most appropriate) "goodies" and stuff like this that's also come to light as a result.

 

Maybe in part because I was too young a the time but I never realized either just how much TV Miss Davis did back then.... and I also can't help wondering just what "Celebrity Next Door" -- as entertaining as it is -- would have been like with the participation of Miss Davis as originally envisioned.  The mind reels with possibilities!! :HALKING:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She didn't seem to care about this whole project a few months ago. Did she finally watch it?

Probably just woke up from a looooooooong nap! :blink:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But seriously ...the show's already aired and she's 101...what does she really have to gain at this point?? I don't totally get it. :lucywow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sue her! Sue her! Get your minds out of the gutter! (Sorry folks, I had to)

 

It's just the natural succession of events: Get Knighted by Queen Elizabeth -> Turn 101 -> Sue Ryan Murphy's ass off via email. Totally badass. She's basically Indiana Jones.

 

This is kind of sweet for me because I probably enjoyed Feud the least of anyone on here- and I don't mean any offense whatsoever. With Charles and Diana as the focus for season two, I totally wouldn't bat an eyelash if the royal family pressed charges. I suppose her "gain" would be to maintain her public image; she's always had a strong reputation for having integrity and keeping out of gossip. Unlike in Feud, I'm sure she never would have done an interview about something like the Davis-Crawford relationship. The suit also directly references her character referring to Joan Fontaine as her "Bitch Sister". The full complaint is available to peruse in a Hollywood Reporter article. I've been skimming.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if this'll give B.D. ideas...

 

It'd be funny if Christina sues: "Eldest Crawford daughter sues Murphy, FX for portraying mother in positive light."

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly can understand why Dame Olivia might be offended at events concerning herself being dramatized (and fictionalized), but Feud is hardly the first docudrama to take such creative liberties.

 

From what I gathered in the suit, she's mainly taking issue with the fictional documentary used as a framing device for the series. Yes, they were putting words into her mouth that she never said in life, and indeed probably wouldn't have, given her tendency towards discretion. However, fictional interviews as framing devices are something of a hallmark in biographical dramas - Gleason and Liz & Dick come to mind as two examples that used them. I guess the difference here is that the subject being interviewed onscreen was still alive in real life at the time. I, personally, did not find her depiction offensive or exploitative in the slightest. I thought they treated her with a great deal of respect and reverence in the series, but that's just my take.

 

The other big bone of contention is the "bitch sister" line. The suit seemed to suggest that the character said the line publicly, but that wasn't the case. When asked about her sister in the interview, Olivia responded with tact and denied any ill feelings. She delivered the line during a private phone call with Davis, so it wasn't presented as a public slight against Joan Fontaine.

 

I'll be curious as to how FX and Murphy respond to this suit. Certainly other dramatizations concerning people still living have come and gone before this one. Some caused a stink (CBS had to bump The Reagans over to ShowTime over right-wing backlash) and may have had legal issues, but public figures have to contend with public interpretations of them. Ultimately, if the creative team can produce sources to prove that they didn't fabricate anything out of thin air, that everything had a basis in fact somewhere, they'll probably come out okay. But it'll be a balancing act, because I know they have great respect for De Havilland and won't want to cause her further humiliation. Perhaps they'll try to settle matters out-of-court to avoid a big scandal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought they treated her with a great deal of respect and reverence in the series, but that's just my takel.

I agree they depicted her image with respect in the series but I'm not sure the same thing can be said about in life. Ryan Murphy openly said he made no effort to contact Dame O during and part of the production process because he didn't want to "bother" her or "intrude" by asking her questions, implying she is a doddering old thing. Reading between the lines in the suit, I think this is a major bone of contention.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree they depicted her image with respect in the series but I'm not sure the same thing can be said about in life. Ryan Murphy openly said he made no effort to contact Dame O during and part of the production process because he didn't want to "bother" her or "intrude" by asking her questions, implying she is a doddering old thing. Reading between the lines in the suit, I think this is a major bone of contention.

Yes, I'd meant to comment on that. I suppose I can understand the rationale of not wanting to intrude, but by the sound of it she would've gladly volunteered some information...or politely declined but appreciated being asked. Seems like Murphy missed a viable opportunity and is paying for it now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevertheless, I'm glad Olivia remains in the spotlight and is apparently still firing on most cylinders (except for some hearing loss). I was thinking yesterday, I wonder if the Dame holds the record of longest span of contemporary articles on noteworthy career events (not involving a personal obituary) in publications like The Hollywood Reporter and Variety than any other performer. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevertheless, I'm glad Olivia remains in the spotlight and is apparently still firing on most cylinders (except for some hearing loss). I was thinking yesterday, I wonder if the Dame holds the record of longest span of contemporary articles on noteworthy career events (not involving a personal obituary) in publications like The Hollywood Reporter and Variety than any other performer. 

Good point...and if not she, who? :HALKING:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly can understand why Dame Olivia might be offended at events concerning herself being dramatized (and fictionalized), but Feud is hardly the first docudrama to take such creative liberties.

 

From what I gathered in the suit, she's mainly taking issue with the fictional documentary used as a framing device for the series. Yes, they were putting words into her mouth that she never said in life, and indeed probably wouldn't have, given her tendency towards discretion. However, fictional interviews as framing devices are something of a hallmark in biographical dramas - Gleason and Liz & Dick come to mind as two examples that used them. I guess the difference here is that the subject being interviewed onscreen was still alive in real life at the time.

 

That's entirely it.  It's been many years since I saw Gleason, and I never saw Liz & Dick, but I'm guessing the fictional interviews in those movies were with Gleason, Taylor and Burton (???) -- all deceased when their respective films came out.  They might not have liked the way they were portrayed had they been alive, and of course dead people have no legal recourse.  And sadly our laws don't allow family to sue for slander or libel on behalf of their deceased loved ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fred Astaire had it put in his will that he could never be portrayed on film. Smart move.

 

That is smart, but is it legally binding?  If so, I'm surprised all the big-name stars don't do that.  Ginger Rogers would have indirectly benefited, too, assuming she didn't want herself portrayed on film.  But what if Ginger Rogers did want her life story and career told on film?  That couldn't be done without there being someone portraying Fred Astaire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is smart, but is it legally binding? If so, I'm surprised all the big-name stars don't do that. Ginger Rogers would have indirectly benefited, too, assuming she didn't want herself portrayed on film. But what if Ginger Rogers did want her life story and career told on film? That couldn't be done without there being someone portraying Fred Astaire.

Ginger actually did sue over a Fred and Ginger film that an Italian company through MGM was trying to make in the 1980s. It was basically along the same premise as this Oliva suit, invasion of privacy. Ginger lost but I'm not sure if the move was made and if it was if it directly used her and Fred's name.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ginger actually did sue over a Fred and Ginger film that an Italian company through MGM was trying to make in the 1980s. It was basically along the same premise as this Oliva suit, invasion of privacy. Ginger lost but I'm not sure if the move was made and if it was if it directly used her and Fred's name.

 

Was this before or after Fred Astaire's death?  I've just never heard of anyone successfully preventing a biopic from being made by forbidding it in their will.  That's why I'm wondering if such a demand in a will is legally binding because I would think all big stars would do that if it were.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this before or after Fred Astaire's death? I've just never heard of anyone successfully preventing a biopic from being made by forbidding it in their will. That's why I'm wondering if such a demand in a will is legally binding because I would think all big stars would do that if it were.

Pretty sure it was before.

 

I can't think that just putting it in a will would prevent it. I'd think you'd have to have some sort of special paperwork drawn up for this.

 

And on the Lucy front, Lucie wasn't able to stop the first biopic on her parents as much as she tried. Not sure if Desilu Too was formed by then, but did they have to seek permission for the image use on the second pic? I would think that biopics are a whole different animal than Lucy's face on a role of toilet paper.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Emmy nominations have been announced. The show is up for best limited series, Jessica and Susan are up for outstanding lead actress, Alfred Molina and Stanley Tucci for outstanding supporting actor, and Jackie Hoffman and Judy Davis for outstanding supporting actress.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...