Joan Crawford "Career Woman" interviewed by Louella Parsons

Joan Crawford is interviewed by the odious Louella Parsons in New York. Either in 1947 or 1948. The film project "Until Proven Guilty" is mentioned, as is Joan's completed film "Daisy Kenyon". Joan is also asked & talks about the progress of her career {as usual}...

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• Joan
• Crawford
• Louella
• Parsons
• Interview
• 1947
• or
• 1948
• Until
• Proven
• Guilty
• Daisy
• Kenyon
• Career
• Women

[iboney]

Is it just me or does this interview sound scripted? The last 30 seconds or so sound pretty "winged" but I would have loved to hear Joan more candid. I know that during that time many supposed "candid" moments were almost always controlled by the studio but I still would have liked an un-staged interview. Oh, well . . .

[TallulahDahling]

Definately scripted. Candid would be great, but a rare thing it seems then & now.

Today's 'stars' & their promo' videos with written questions that preface the answers, allow any interviewer to edit the response & look as though it were a 1 on 1 interview.

[Patrick3183]

Fabulous. Joan was ahead of her time!

[janetleigh100]

What horrible thing to say. Neither was hideous especially the beautiful and caring miss Joan Crawford. Have some respect.

[edwardjames50]

@janetleigh100 ~ The "hideous" in the video is meant to apply to Louella, not Joan, and Louella Parsons was indeed hideous AND odious!

[kcirish]

@kcirish By the way, seeing as your getting a bit foolish with your replies, name calling etc, I will not be repling to anymore of your comments, ofwhich Im sure there will be many. Its easy to hide behind a computer screen and try to insult people, perhaps thats what fills your time but I will not be apart of it.

[kcirish]

@kcirish Clearly is is not possible to have an adult debate with you as you have from the start, lowered yourself to trying (and failing) insult me with childish name calling. However to answer you question, the proof of Joans talent is there to be seen in any of her screen roles however there is no proof of her being a child abuser. It is true as you say that in cases of child abuse there is rarely evidence but that doesnt mean anytime someone is accused, they are guilty. Thats gossip not fact.

[V1llary]

@kcirish Christina's book brought attention to the issue of child abuse and made it ok to talk about openly and because you are such a sicko all you can do is call her a liar and a bad writer. Even Joan's own friends admit that she treated the kids horribly and that's just from what she wasn't able to hide. So why don't you answer my question, sicko. I can accept that Joan Crawford was a great actress, star, drunk and child abuser. Why can't you accept the same? (p.s. Mommie, not Mommy you dolt)

[V1llary]

@kcirish again with the non-applicable legal terms. There can be no conviction because she was never charged with any crime. Your dramatics are showing. Again, abused children do not have the luxury of planting cameras around their homes as they're growing up to collect evidence of said abuse. It's part of the nastiness of child abuse; that it's the child's word against the parent and when there are sycophant abuse-apologists like you running around it's no wonder.

[kcirish]

@V1llary You are clearly a nasty person that loves to believe the worst lies created by people after someone has dies, and can not defiend themselves. The book Mommy Dearest was written (badly) by her daughter for money. I dont just believe Joan didnt do it because of her fame as an actress but more so because there is no proof at all, gossip yes, proof, no. That may be good enough to convict a person for you but not for me.

[V1llary]

@kcirish also, funny that all the people you say who claimed nothing ever happened were the one's who were being paid by Joan or benefited financially in her will. Very convincing argument you have. Especially the typical sycophant like you who thinks that the fact that "Joan was a wonderful actress and star and was always kind when the cameras were on" somehow proves that she was not also a child abusing drunk. I can admit that she was all of the above. Why can't you?

[V1llary]

@kcirish actually, she was never brought up on any criminal charges so innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply here. How many of the adult victims of child molestation by priests or their uncle or parents ever have any proof? Never, yet to hear someone like you and your rational there has never been any abuse unless it can be proven with video evidence. lol And you're wrong, Christopher also backed many of the abuse charges.

[kcirish]

@V1llary There is ofcourse the little issue of being innocent until proven guilty. Its the normal lazy comments from people like you that always pop up whenever Joan Crawfords name is said. She was one of the best actresses in the world and spoke highly of her children at every chance she got. People always bring up the book her adopted daughter wrote however they seem to always forget that her 3 other children have said nothing ever happend, and her house staff have said this too.

[NFitalianGuy]

Joan Crawford really was an intelligent woman and gave a great interview. She is right about the diction, posture, clothes etc. Old Hollywood had class & Glamour. Not anymore, with al the girls sporting piercings and tattoos and behaving like slothful creatures. The men included, the actors today are all free agents and the hollywoodstudio system should come back, if not to just polish & refine its stars