Kate Winslet takes on Joan Crawford's Oscar-winning role in 'Mildred Pierce'
Let's just hope, for Kate Winslet's sake, that ghosts don't exist. The newly crowned Academy Award champ ("The Reader") is said to be taking on the Oscar-winning role in "Mildred Pierce" (1945), and we can only imagine what Mildred Fierce — er, Joan Crawford — might think of that.
Variety reports Todd Haynes ("I'm Not There") is adapting James M. Cain's bestselling 1941 novel and will direct the TV miniseries. No deal has been set, but HBO is said to be interested in the project. Haynes was a 2002 Oscar nominee for his script of "Far From Heaven," a homage to the lush 1950s movie romances of director Douglas Sirk; he lost to Pedro Almodovar for "Talk to Her."
The 1945 film contended for six Oscars, including best picture, which went to "The Lost Weekend." Crawford earned the first of her eventual three Oscar nods – "Possessed" (1947) and "Sudden Fear" (1952) were the others. Famously, the grande dame feigned illness on Oscar night. After skipping the ceremony, she received the press at home, where she accepted the Oscar in bed.
The meaty title role in "Mildred Pierce" is a single mother who struggles to provide for her two daughters during the Depression. Taking on a job as a waitress, she infuriates her older daughter, Veda, who has grandiose social ambitions. After younger daughter Kay dies of pneumonia, Mildred pours all her love into the ungrateful Veda. The mother is even willing to take a murder rap for the daughter, who offs her stepfather in a dramatic shootout.
If Winslet thinks she can score another award, an Emmy, by assuming this role, she may be doubly mistaken. For starters, "Mildred Pierce" looks like high-camp soap opera when viewed from the cynical perspective of the 21st century. How can that mix be adapted for modern audiences? Secondly, it may not really be award material. It's widely known among Oscarologists that Crawford didn't really win her Golden Boy for the brilliance of her diva strutting in "Mildred Pierce." She won it for the brilliance of her full throttle, strong-arm campaign, one of the first major tub-thumping blitzkriegs in Oscar history.
In 1945, it looked like Crawford's career was all washed up. She had left MGM after 18 years and was desperately hustling up roles at Warner Bros. when she discovered "Mildred Pierce," a role rejected by Bette Davis. Director Michael Curtiz didn't want Crawford on board, dismissing her as a has-been, but he finally bowed to studio pressure after she agreed to take a screen test.
In December, award watchers were stunned when Crawford was voted best actress by the National Board of Review. Variety called it an "eye-opening selection," which certainly opened Crawford's eyes. Promptly, she hired a veteran PR man to manage her Oscar campaign and was off to win her overdue chunk of academy gold. At that point, Bette Davis already had won two ("Jezebel," "Dangerous").
Photo: Warner Bros.
Can pole dancing vault Miley Cyrus into Grammys race?
South Park' unaired pilot premieres online
'Family Guy' creator Seth MacFarlane outs baby Stewie
'Avatar' free Imax preview details revealed
Undefeated Oscars champ Hilary Swank aims for No. 3 in 'Amelia'
TV academy and CBS reversal on Emmy Awards time-shifting
70 years ago: Oscar loser 'The Wizard of Oz' opened
New York Film Festival to showcase 'Wild Grass,' 'Broken Embraces' and 'Precious'
'The Lovely Bones': Peter Jackson's next Oscars pony
Brooks & Dunn split after 19 award-winning years
Get Gold Derby on Twitter. Join the Gold Derby Group at Facebook. Become friends with Tom O'Neil on Facebook. Get Gold Derby RSS feed via Facebook. RSS Feedburner. RSS Atom.
dear mr. tom o'neill,
armando and brian and myself read correctly the headline: is kate winslet looking for a second academy award?
that appears as is on the front page of the envelope. if you click that, you will see what we responded to...
Posted by: alluhrey | August 18, 2009 at 08:05 AM
"If Winslet thinks she can score another award, an Emmy, by assuming this role, she may be doubly mistaken"
Really? Because we all know that Kate Winslet asks herself "Hmmm, this is totally award worthy so I definitely need to do it. Reason #1 to do a movie: Awards!
Seriously Mr. O'Neil! Did you ever think that maybe Kate sees potential in this script among other things? Good lord man. Ugh...you annoy me at times.
Posted by: Mariano | August 17, 2009 at 07:12 PM
Armando and Brian -- you're reading something into the headline that isn't there -- and you are not quoting it correctly
Posted by: Tom O'Neil | August 16, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Headline: Is Kate Winslet looking for a second Academy Award?
Article: Variety reports Todd Haynes ("I'm Not There") is adapting James M. Cain's bestselling 1941 novel and will direct the TV miniseries. No deal has been set, but HBO is said to be interested in the project.
????
Posted by: Armando | August 16, 2009 at 08:09 AM
this headline is stupid..they've already said this is going to be for HBO
Posted by: Brian | August 15, 2009 at 02:48 PM
Tom,
this article is ridiculous.
My favorite part is the following: econdly, it may not really be award material. It's widely known among Oscarologists that Crawford didn't really win her Golden Boy for the brilliance of her diva strutting in "Mildred Pierce." She won it for the brilliance of her full throttle, strong-arm campaign, one of the first major tub-thumping blitzkriegs in Oscar history.
AND YOU THINK THAT ACTRESSES TODAY - UNLIKE CRAWFORD - WIN FOR THEIR BRILLIANCE ON THE SCREEN ALONE??!
LIKE HALLE BERRY'S "BRILLIANT" PERFORMANCE IN MONSTER'S BALL OR GWYNETH PALTROW'S "IMPRESSIVE" PERFORMANCE IN SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE.
Come on! Find better arguments! This article is simply boring.
Posted by: Ross | August 15, 2009 at 04:06 AM
i didn't realize they gave oscars for tv movies?!!! well, they just widened the best picture nominees to 10, so tv movies may just qualify, and tv movie actresses might too....
c'mon mr. o'neil, that's too much anticipation for your favorite naked oscar babe winslet.
Posted by: alluhrey | August 14, 2009 at 08:21 PM
Why SHOULDN'T Crawford have campaigned for her Oscar? She knew as well as we do today, how political the selection process is. She deserved to be at least nominated several times prior to Mildred Pierce (and she should have won Best Actress for Rain in 1932-does anyone today even remember who did win that year?). You shouldn't present your opinions without all of the facts, Mr. O'Neil. Shabby attempt at journalism.
Posted by: rob | August 14, 2009 at 03:31 PM
Well, I'd say that, if the camp classic is being adapted as an HBO mini-series, any Oscar dreams are certainly misplaced. Perhaps an Emmy in Winslet's future???
Posted by: JR | August 14, 2009 at 01:41 PM
I'm sure Tom was just so engrossed in Oscar history that he forgot to mention the second reason why Kate won't win an Oscar for "Mildred Pierce": Because it will be a TV movie!
Posted by: Jeff | August 14, 2009 at 01:31 PM
Hollywood, please leave the great pictures alone! Joan Crawford is and always will be Mildred Pierce. The End.....
Posted by: Carmen | August 14, 2009 at 01:10 PM
I am really tired of "new" Hollywood remaking old classic movies. Please come up with original ideas of your own and leave these old movies alone for us to enjoy again and again.
Posted by: NINA ALEXANDER | August 14, 2009 at 11:44 AM
If it's going to be a TV movie, wouldn't Ms. Winslet be jockeying for an Emmy? Plus, the Joan Crawford film greatly distorts James Cain's novel, where he draws Mildred as a Barbara Stanwyck or even Virginia Mayo type, and the plot plays out very differently and far more ironically, its climax involving not a murder but a twist surrounding Veda's singing career and Mildred's betrayal by every one, even the Ida character Eve Arden played, ending with Mildred's return to her white-trash roots. A Haynes adaptation of THAT with Kate could be amazing.
Posted by: dorothy | August 14, 2009 at 11:39 AM