Tweet Buster Keaton Biographies: Which one to buy?

Perhaps Frederica believes in the theory of Synchronicity, in other words, if you're standing in the middle of the Gobi Desert at 2:45 pm and you're hit smack in the forehead by a falling meteor, it's your fault because you decided to stand in that spot at 2:45 pm when the meteor hit. We are indeed all responsible for our reactions to our environment, and our decisions to put ourselves in that environment in the first place, as well as the consequences.

But then again, that means that Virginia Rappe was responsible for her own death because she decided to hang out with those people, go to that party in San Francisco, and put herself in that bedroom with Roscoe Arbuckle, right Fred?

RICHARD M ROBERTS

Which would also suggest that Roscoe Arbuckle was just as responsible for what happened, too.

If he actually did something, indeed, but if he didn't, kinda blows the whole Synchronicity theory to hell, doesn't it? Thats why I have always believed far more in the "Shit Happens" and "It seemed like a good idea at the time" theories when it comes to life. Having never thought of anyone whose work I admire as being either perfect or saintly, or even someone I'd actually want to meet, nor even thinking my self any better or worse than most of them, I don't get that concerned about who they were,cause once their dead, all the second-hand testimony and evidence in the Universe ain't gonna get the story completely straight.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Since we know it is not possible for Buster to have lied--or even to have been slightly self-serving--what evidence do we then have that Natalie lied in her account of the marriage? Oh wait, no one ever asked Natalie for her account of the marriage, did they?

It's obviously quite possible for Keaton to have been self-serving and for his memory to have been inaccurate on certain matters, as in fact it was. And yet, after his life has been gone through with a fine-tooth comb, subject to a series of biographies (one of which knocked him at every opportunity possible), and documented in countless interviews with those who knew him and Natalie, there's still nothing to suggest that Keaton--who was not known to be much of a liar--was bulls****ing. I'm sure you'd be delighted if someone discovered a long-lost diary of Natalie's that revealed Keaton was a wife-beating drunkard who made his wife's life hell at every opportunity he got. But until then you'll just have to settle with the knowledge of the marriage that exists.

Since we know it is not possible for Buster to have lied--or even to have been slightly self-serving--what evidence do we then have that Natalie lied in her account of the marriage? Oh wait, no one ever asked Natalie for her account of the marriage, did they?

It's obviously quite possible for Keaton to have been self-serving and for his memory to have been inaccurate on certain matters, as in fact it was. And yet, after his life has been gone through with a fine-tooth comb, subject to a series of biographies (one of which knocked him at every opportunity possible), and documented countless interviews with those who knew him and Natalie, there's still nothing to suggest that Keaton--who was not known to be much of a liar--was bulls****ing. I'm sure you'd be delighted if someone discovered a long-lost diary of Natalie's that revealed Keaton was a wife-beating drunkard who made his wife's life hell at every opportunity he got. But until then you'll just have to settle with what exists.

Yep, that's exactly what I said, you got that right, yesireebob.

You're proving my point here.

Since we know it is not possible for Buster to have lied--or even to have been slightly self-serving--what evidence do we then have that Natalie lied in her account of the marriage? Oh wait, no one ever asked Natalie for her account of the marriage, did they?

It's obviously quite possible for Keaton to have been self-serving and for his memory to have been inaccurate on certain matters, as in fact it was. And yet, after his life has been gone through with a fine-tooth comb, subject to a series of biographies (one of which knocked him at every opportunity possible), and documented countless interviews with those who knew him and Natalie, there's still nothing to suggest that Keaton--who was not known to be much of a liar--was bulls****ing. I'm sure you'd be delighted if someone discovered a long-lost diary of Natalie's that revealed Keaton was a wife-beating drunkard who made his wife's life hell at every opportunity he got. But until then you'll just have to settle with what exists.

Yep, that's exactly what I said, you got that right, yesireebob.

You're proving my point here.

Well, no, because there isn't much evidence to portray that Keaton was a wife-beating drunkard either, certainly Eleanor never said anything along those lines, and from the testimony from those who knew Natalie Talmadge and the evidence of how she lived her life after Buster doesn't show her to be much of a joy to be around, but again, you can't get the whole story, everyone involved is dead, and taking sides in the issue seems rather pointless now. As always, what matters now is the films.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Yep, that's exactly what I said, you got that right, yesireebob.
You're proving my point here.

How would you know, since you can't even prove your own? Even if we didn't trust Keaton's account of the marriage, the voluminous knowledge that we have of his life from other sources essentially bears out his account. You can prate on about Natalie's side of the story not having been told, but what exactly do you think it would reveal? That Keaton had fooled the world? It's easy to make a case based on unknown evidence. Proving it is another matter.

Well, no, because there isn't much evidence to portray that Keaton was a wife-beating drunkard either, certainly Eleanor never said anything along those lines, and from the testimony from those who knew Natalie Talmadge and the evidence of how she lived her life after Buster doesn't show her to be much of a joy to be around, but again, you can't get the whole story, everyone involved is dead, and taking sides in the issue seems rather pointless now. As always, what matters now is the films.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

That was not the point I referring to. You're right, we can't get the whole story and taking sides is pointless--it usually is pointless when discussing the failure of a marriage--but it's what we have done for a lot of years, and even suggesting that we're not being objective has gotten everyone's knickers in a twist. It's the twisted knickers that are proving my point. Why? I'm not saying anything that is particularly revolutionary, although it is a tad on the (gasp!) revisionist side. This stuff ain't Holy Writ.

Look, I did not suggest that we should all get into a snit and stop watching Buster's films, or cast him as Snidely Whiplash in the melodrama of his own life. I'm saying we can, just maybe can, accept him as a flawed human being and occasional screwup, just like the rest of us.

Yep, that's exactly what I said, you got that right, yesireebob.
You're proving my point here.

How would you know, since you can't even prove your own? Even if we didn't trust Keaton's account of the marriage, the voluminous knowledge that we have of his life from other sources essentially bears out his account. You can prate on about Natalie's side of the story not having been told, but what exactly do you think it would reveal? That Keaton had fooled the world? It's easy to make a case based on unknown evidence. Proving it is another matter.

Oy. Yeah, whatever.

... and from the testimony from those who knew Natalie Talmadge and the evidence of how she lived her life after Buster doesn't show her to be much of a joy to be around, but again, you can't get the whole story, everyone involved is dead, and taking sides in the issue seems rather pointless now. As always, what matters now is the films.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

What is the evidence on how Natalie lived her life after Buster? The accounts i've read were by Meade and Loos, ans we've already established them as of questionable reliability. I've talked to Buster and Natalie's grandaughter, and got an impression instead of a nice woman who loved her family and was a bit of a worrywort. Her daughter in law really liked her.

greta

... and from the testimony from those who knew Natalie Talmadge and the evidence of how she lived her life after Buster doesn't show her to be much of a joy to be around, but again, you can't get the whole story, everyone involved is dead, and taking sides in the issue seems rather pointless now. As always, what matters now is the films.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

What is the evidence on how Natalie lived her life after Buster? The accounts i've read were by Meade and Loos, ans we've already established them as of questionable reliability. I've talked to Buster and Natalie's grandaughter, and got an impression instead of a nice woman who loved her family and was a bit of a worrywort. Her daughter in law really liked her.

greta

Melissa Talmadge-Cox said she was indeed a nice little old lady as long as you didn't mention Grandpa Buster around her, and most likely she was. This is the whole problem with summing up anyones life, especially when they are a peripheral part of the someone else who's biography you're actually doing. When all they get is a paragraph saying "oh, they were a reclusive drunk for the rest of their lives", well, no, they got up each morning, spent 24 hours like everyone else, read the paper, went to the store, probably talked to various people about the weather, and got on with the part of their lives not interesting to us most likely without being mean to anyone in particular. Thats why taking sides in this sort of thing is so silly. I think Frederica got jumped on because she wanted to push Natalie towards the victim role when nobody in the discussion was really trying to push Buster there either. Neither Buster nor Natalie were victims, and the big picture hindsight opinion really is that it was a marriage doomed from the get-go. However, on the surface, from the evidence and reportage, it does look like Buster moved on a bit better than Natalie did, but hey, if she really was the cold reclusive fish as she comes off in the reportage, Natalie may have indeed ended up in exactly the life she wanted. Then here's to her, it's really none of our business anyway, back to the movies.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

What is the evidence on how Natalie lived her life after Buster? The accounts i've read were by Meade and Loos, ans we've already established them as of questionable reliability. I've talked to Buster and Natalie's grandaughter, and got an impression instead of a nice woman who loved her family and was a bit of a worrywort. Her daughter in law really liked her.

greta

I think Frederica got jumped on because she wanted to push Natalie towards the victim role when nobody in the discussion was really trying to push Buster there either.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

No, I did not. I wanted to push Natalie toward the human role, instead of casting her as Cruella de Vil, which is the role she's usually assigned. I was also saying that it is not good historical practice (or even close to objective) to assign motivations to Natalie when no one bothered to get her take on things.

What is the evidence on how Natalie lived her life after Buster? The accounts i've read were by Meade and Loos, ans we've already established them as of questionable reliability. I've talked to Buster and Natalie's grandaughter, and got an impression instead of a nice woman who loved her family and was a bit of a worrywort. Her daughter in law really liked her.

greta

I think Frederica got jumped on because she wanted to push Natalie towards the victim role when nobody in the discussion was really trying to push Buster there either.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

No, I did not. I wanted to push Natalie toward the human role, instead of casting her as Cruella de Vil, which is the role she's usually assigned. I was also saying that it is not good historical practice (or even close to objective) to assign motivations to Natalie when no one bothered to get her take on things.

I don't think she really is ever placed in the Cruella De Vil role, except in the divorce proceedings, and the changing of her and Buster's kids last names and trying to obliterate their father from their lives, and just from the record, I think that criticism is justified. She is too much of a retiring wallflower to be that much of a villainess, and it is even possible that she was talked into her divorce behavior by her family, but it was she that created that rift in the Families post-divorce, however much it failed in the long run.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

No, I did not. I wanted to push Natalie toward the human role, instead of casting her as Cruella de Vil, which is the role she's usually assigned. I was also saying that it is not good historical practice (or even close to objective) to assign motivations to Natalie when no one bothered to get her take on things.

I don't think she really is ever placed in the Cruella De Vil role, except in the divorce proceedings, and the changing of her and Buster's kids last names and trying to obliterate their father from their lives, and just from the record, I think that criticism is justified. She is too much of a retiring wallflower to be that much of a villainess, and it is even possible that she was talked into her divorce behavior by her family, but it was she that created that rift in the Families post-divorce, however much it failed in the long run.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

Oh sure she is, Richard, c'mon. Remember, we have only Buster's take on why she behaved the way she did, and it's just slightly possible that he was spinning things a bit. Emotions usually run very high during divorces, which tends to warp reasoning for both parties. At the very least, it would have been good practice to state that we don't know why Natalie did anything and that given our incomplete information, we can't form any judgments. Present what Buster said, and hedge it with the usual caveats.

As an new BK fan I have to agree with Fred, some fans think Natalie is evil incarnate and BK is her poor, poor victim. Not an exaggeration (much) either. I read Keaton's MWWS, and enjoyed it, but it, like other auto-bio's reminds me of a job resume; you polish up the good points, highlight your accomplishments and minimize and down play failures and other negatives. I don't hold that against him though. Why should BK or anyone else do different? It's their story to tell and not wanting to fully air dirty laundry is OK by me. But don't mistake it for the full story, which some fans have done, in my opinion and experience.

I must admit I that find how he put his life back together, and the some of the choices he made after his crash more interesting than before his crash. He was able to maintain a happy marriage for instance, and decided to not renew his contract with Columbia, instead of just continuing with a situation he did not like. I'd rather read new material on his later life and work, than rehash his earlier life.

Cheers,
Maureen

Oh sure she is, Richard, c'mon. Remember, we have only Buster's take on why she behaved the way she did, and it's just slightly possible that he was spinning things a bit. Emotions usually run very high during divorces, which tends to warp reasoning for both parties. At the very least, it would have been good practice to state that we don't know why Natalie did anything and that given our incomplete information, we can't form any judgments. Present what Buster said, and hedge it with the usual caveats.

Oh, we have far more than just Buster's take on the situation, and the legal proceedings are a matter of public record. Even Rudi Blesh talked with a number of the participants, and Blesh treats her with more sympathy than Dardis or Meade did, and they never did talk to Buster. Any way you want to slice it, changing the kids last names and stopping them from seeing their Father is a severe act that was certainly unjustified in Buster's case, and I feel sorry for anyones kids who were shipped off to the Black-Foxe Military Academy, reports of which from them that went there are none too praiseworthy.

Sure there are wide-eyed fans and writers who want to taint Natalie with the bitch-brush, but they are also frequently the ones who say Buster Keaton ended up a broken-down old has-been tragically working in Frankie and Annette beach pictures who never did anything worthwhile after THE CAMERAMAN. Such is the fantasy of film fandom. Doesn't mean that Natalie wasn't given a fair shake by those in the know. It also doesn't mean we should assume Buster is lying just because Natalie didn't write THAT BASTARD BUSTER KEATON, published by Doubleday.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

I like the part where the front of the house falls around him.

Keaton was in Chaplin's Limelight (1952) which is considered
a great movie (as are all of Chaplin's later movies).

It also doesn't mean we should assume Buster is lying just because Natalie didn't write THAT BASTARD BUSTER KEATON, published by Doubleday.

It's to bad she didn't; then Chaplin fans could argue with Keaton fans about who's ex-wife wrote the better expose on her bastard of an ex-husband. Would Grey be renown for her subtlety and tact? Or would Talmadge be found superior for her straightforward snarkiness? Would scenes of poolside drunkenness be favored over steamy bathroom love scenes? Whose copies of legal proceedings would be found wanting? Would doe eyed mistresses be named outright? In a side by side comparison of divorce settlements, which ex-wife would be the one to "make out like a bandit?" Whose book would have been the biggest seller?

It's just as well she didn't.

Cheers,
Maureen

Buster lived to and stayed actively working until he was 71. I think most
real alcoholics die by the time they are in their mid-50s.

Buster lived to and stayed actively working until he was 71. I think most
real alcoholics die by the time they are in their mid-50s.

Tell that to W. C. Fields.


"There's more old drunks than there are old doctors, so I think I'll have another round."----Willie Nelson


RICHARD M ROBERTS

I think most
real alcoholics die by the time they are in their mid-50s.

Except for those who achieve and maintain sobriety, of course.

It also doesn't mean we should assume Buster is lying just because Natalie didn't write THAT BASTARD BUSTER KEATON, published by Doubleday.

It's to bad she didn't; then Chaplin fans could argue with Keaton fans about who's ex-wife wrote the better expose on her bastard of an ex-husband. Would Grey be renown for her subtlety and tact? Or would Talmadge be found superior for her straightforward snarkiness? Would scenes of poolside drunkenness be favored over steamy bathroom love scenes? Whose copies of legal proceedings would be found wanting? Would doe eyed mistresses be named outright? In a side by side comparison of divorce settlements, which ex-wife would be the one to "make out like a bandit?" Whose book would have been the biggest seller?

It's just as well she didn't.

Cheers,
Maureen

But you make it sound like so much fun!

Jim

Keaton was in Chaplin's Limelight (1952) which is considered
a great movie (as are all of Chaplin's later movies).

You don't seem to be very familiar with the reception of Chaplin's later movies. All of them after Great Dictator were commercial and critical bombs.

At this point, the general feeling appears to be that Verdoux was either a flawed masterpiece or a pretentious stinker; ditto Limelight, while King In New York and Countess From Hong Kong were both unmitigated disasters.

Jim

Keaton was in Chaplin's Limelight (1952) which is considered
a great movie (as are all of Chaplin's later movies).

You don't seem to be very familiar with the reception of Chaplin's later movies. All of them after Great Dictator were commercial and critical bombs.

At this point, the general feeling appears to be that Verdoux was either a flawed masterpiece or a pretentious stinker; ditto Limelight, while King In New York and Countess From Hong Kong were both unmitigated disasters.

Jim

I'm just going by what people on IMDB and YouTube say about them.

While I value academic criticism for objective historic information,
I take such criticism as to the value of a film or it's standing
among other films as somewhat subjective and which tends to change
from decade to decade. People can tell me that Abstract Expressionism
is objectively great painting, but if I'm a fan of the Pre-Raphealites
and Dutch Renaissance work, you might see I have little need for the
opinions of those championing Abstract Expressionism.

Wow, I didn’t expect this thread to go on such a tangent.

This argument reminds me of a Disney forum I went on once where people were discussing how Walt Disney is portrayed by his own company as this saintly wonderful man, and how this one biography (I think it’s called Walt Disney: Hollywood’s Dark Prince) totally vilifies him. It led to an argument very much like the one on this thread right now. Anyways, I’ve decided to give my own two cents…

I don’t like it when people say Natalie was nothing but a total b**** who ruined Buster’s life; she was a human being, just like you and me. She had a good side and a bad one like everyone else, and she obviously wasn’t too horrible a person if Buster decided to marry her in the first place. Like Frederica said, there’s no record of her perspective on things, so no one has ANY right to treat her like the villain.

As for MGM, they obviously had no clue what to do with Keaton. Many people put the blame for Keaton’s decline in the 30s solely on MGM, but if you actually look at his life, it’s obvious MGM wasn’t the only cause. Like other posters have said, Keaton didn’t make the best out of his situation at MGM, and it was his drinking that led to him getting fired. However, we cannot place all the blame solely on Keaton: if you look at the early 30s, that was a really rough time for him: getting divorced, losing custody of his kids, the death of his lifelong friend Roscoe Arbuckle, and, of course, losing his artistic independence. If it were most of us in that situation, what would we have done? I know I wouldn’t have done much better.

In short, he was neither a tragic saintly man wronged by fate nor was he a wretch completely responsible for his troubles. He was a human being, who screwed up and got stuck in crappy circumstances like the rest of us do.

Now, what does everyone think about Mae Scriven?


RICHARD M ROBERTS

There's very little info on the marriage between Keaton and Scriven, as far as I know, other than the fact that it was miserable and quite short.

Now, what does everyone think about Mae Scriven?

If memory serves, the Blesh biography doesn't even dignify her by mentioning her name, right? So Evil She Cannot Be Named? Am I misremembering that?

Blesh: loves and reveres Buster and his art, but shaky on the details and quick to cry "victim." Meade: disdainful and methodologically fishy, but at least broader in scope. There's no doubt room for a satisfactory biography somewhere between these two poles. But maybe I wouldn't want to read it in any case. As has been pointed out, the films are the good part. (I sort of—sort of—regret reading about the life of Charles Dickens; I'd rather my favorite writer had not been quite such a turd.)

That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this thread (which has been fascinating) but I'm thinking of at least one show biz icon who has never had an all-out definitive biography, much like the current Spencer Tracy book. And the subject I suggest is Bob Hope. Now there is one huge story waiting to be told, since I always found Hope a tad enigmatic, and his show biz imprimatur was unequaled in many ways. Anyway, back to Buster.

Now, what does everyone think about Mae Scriven?

If memory serves, the Blesh biography doesn't even dignify her by mentioning her name, right? So Evil She Cannot Be Named? Am I misremembering that?

Keaton married Voldemort?

At the risk of replacing Natalie with the evil Mayer/Thalberg bête noire, can someone refresh my memory concerning Buster's last days at MGM? (or, to dovetail onto the original post, recommend a bio that covers this point in the best detail?)

Keaton's departure may be a *few* months ahead of Anita Page, Billy Haines and (elsewhere) Pickford, Fairbanks and Barthelmess, but the timing would suggest that, like many other aging silent players who made the transition to sound, they were nonetheless being replaced by the next generation of talent.

The exception, here, is that the others I mentioned were (ultimately) OK with the prospect of ending their film careers and doing something else. Keaton (and, to a lesser degree, Gilbert) still needed/wanted to work and pursued their careers elsewhere.

In other words, did MGM terminate Keaton's contract or did they simply choose not to renew it?

[Mike Gebert]

I don't know, I always kind of had the feeling from reading about his life that Keaton was screwed over by some people named Talmadge, but Natalie was a victim of them as well. Dardis talks about Peg and the other sisters coming to inform Keaton, after their last child was born, that Natalie's bed was closed for business from then on. She seems naive next to her sisters and mother, and her fury and repudiation of Buster suggests that she couldn't see why he didn't just do what Peg ordered, since that was what everyone was supposed to do. They never seem to have had a relationship on its own terms as individuals, out from under the Talmadge house rules.

In the end, I've always found Natalie a much sadder figure than Buster. She lived the rest of her life in the past, he didn't.