The summary and note for this entry were completed with participation from the AFI Academic Network. Summary and note were written by participant Katelyn Cooley, a student at Oregon State University, with Jon Lewis as academic advisor.

A 12 Jun 1978 New York news item announced that Christina Crawford sold the screen rights to her biographical book, Mommie Dearest (1978), to Paramount Pictures Corp. for $300,000, and that she was hired for an additional $250,000 to adapt the screenplay. Frank Yablans was set to produce. New York noted that while Crawford also earned $700,000 for the paperback publication of her book, publisher Simon and Schuster planned to issue an alternative and more sympathetic biography of Christina’s mother, Bob Thomas’s Joan Crawford (1978), two months before publishing house W. Morrow released Mommie Dearest.
       On 11 Dec 1979, NYT reported that Yablans, who planned to start production in spring, 1980, was having difficulty acquiring an acceptable script. NYT stated that both Christina Crawford and writer Robert Getchell worked on early versions of the screenplay, and author James Kirkwood had resigned from the project by the time of the news item’s publication. A 12 Nov 1979 Village Voice brief reported that William Goldman also wrote a draft of the script. As noted by various contemporary sources, including NYT and Village Voice, Anne Bancroft was cast in the role of “Joan Crawford” and Franco Zeffirelli was set to direct. On 17 Sep 1980, Var announced that Frank Perry had contracted with Paramount to take over as director and a 26 Jan 1981 HR news item revealed that Faye Dunaway replaced Bancroft.
       According to studio production notes from AMPAS library files, the film’s twelve-week shooting schedule began 26 Jan 1981 in Los Angeles, CA. Crawford’s home was built on two sound stages at the Paramount Pictures studio; Stage 8 housed the bedrooms and Crawford’s dressing room and bathroom while Stage 16 held the set for the living room, with a stairway and foyer, as well as the kitchen. As reported in a 24 Apr 1981 LAT article, the filmmakers toured Crawford’s former home in Brentwood, CA, but found it unsuitable for filming. Production notes added Chadwick School in Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA, the administration building at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios and Perino’s Restaurant in Los Angeles as locations. The production began on the beach in Malibu, CA, where scenes between Crawford and her lover, “Greg Savitt,” were filmed over the period of two weeks.
       Production notes also reported that recreating domestic abuse was particularly challenging for the cast and crew. The “most physical scene” between Crawford and her daughter, which depicted the fight that ensues when “Christina” leaves school, was saved for the end of the shooting schedule in case the actresses were injured. The set was restricted to only necessary cast and crew. In an 8 Sep 1981 Gallup Independent article, actress Diana Scarwid, who portrayed the adult Christina, said her fear that the film represented Crawford too sympathetically was dispelled by the scene. The fighting caused her ears to ring “for days.”
       Dunaway noted in a 15 Jun 1981 People news item that the film represented her “most difficult screen role” to date, but she reportedly did not endear herself to the production team, arriving late for her three-hour makeup calls for example, and Paramount executives considered firing her. However, according to the 24 Apr 1981 LAT article, Dunaway spent months researching her role and became an “expert” about Crawford’s iconic image. Fifteen wigs and fifty-three wardrobe changes were custom made for Dunaway’s transformation. Hairstylist Vivienne Walker, as well as make-up artist Charles H. Schram, reportedly worked with Crawford.
       Although the film was initially rated “R” by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Classification and Ratings Appeal Board revised the rating to “PG,” as stated in a 21 Aug 1981 HR news item.
       According to a 17 Sep 1981 LAHExam article, Paramount overestimated the public’s familiarity with Crawford and decided to alter its advertising strategy to focus on mother-daughter relationships and the Golden Age of Hollywood filmmaking rather than the actress. Paramount realized their error when Life contracted photographer George Hurrell to replicate four of his iconic portraits of Crawford, using Dunaway as the sitter. When the images were tested for the cover of Life’s Jul 1981 issue, readers expressed more interest in an article about “dry water holes” and Hurrell’s pictures were bumped from their featured placement. As a result, Paramount, which spent $10 million to produce the film, campaigned for revival movie theaters and television stations to run Crawford films and hoped that Christina Crawford’s best-seller, which had grossed $3 million in paperback sales alone, would draw audiences to its screen adaptation. Yablans, who reportedly “hand-carried” the film to New York City for its first screening so that critics on the East Coast could review the movie first before their counterparts in the West, told LAHExam that Paramount was banking on Dunaway’s performance. He stated that Crawford’s “illusion of a perfection” was a metaphor for the film industry.
       As noted in various contemporary sources, including LAT on 30 Sep 1981 and LAHExam on 11 Oct 1981, Dunaway’s dramatic portrayal of Crawford unintentionally provoked laughter from audiences. Despite its serious subject matter, the film was received as a comedy. However, LAT reported, this was not a deterrent for audiences, and the film grossed $752,462 at its 18 Sep 1981 New York City premiere. According to Paramount, this marked “the biggest September opening in the history of New York.” Box office receipts from the opening weekend nationwide totaled $4,667,761 and after seventeen days, the film grossed $10.5 million. As stated in LAHExam, audiences reportedly talked back to the screen, and many of Dunaway’s lines were quickly inducted into popular culture’s lexicon of “camp phrases,” such as “No wire hangers… ever!”
       In response, Paramount capitalized on the phenomenon and changed its advertising campaign to feature wire hangers instead of a portrait of Dunaway. Underneath the advertisement’s headline, which quoted Dunaway’s line from the film, was the text: “The biggest mother of them all.” Yablans, who described the wording as an offensive racial slur, according to a 14 Oct 1981 LAHExam news item, immediately sued Paramount for $10 million and sought “a temporary restraining order against its future use.” Although Yablan’s request was refused in court, Paramount created a modified version of the advertisement for Los Angeles and New York, but continued to run it in other major cities.
       According to a 25 May 1981 LAHExam article, Christina Crawford was concerned that the film would be too sympathetic toward her mother and wanted to participate in the production, but Yablans asked her to “stay away” from the set because he “felt that she and Dunaway wouldn’t be that copacetic.” On 27 Oct 1981, Crawford told LAHExam that “Dunaway’s portrayal was absolutely ludicrous” and noted that her mother was “a much more complex” person than depicted in the film. However, the film provoked a spike in sales of Crawford’s paperback. As noted in the 25 May 1981 LAHExam, the author’s estranged sister, Cathy Crawford La Londe, disputed Crawford’s account of their mother, calling the actress a “warm person” who never restorted to abuse. La Londe claimed Christina Crawford was jealous of their mother’s success.