Tweet Buster Keaton Biographies: Which one to buy?

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

He was fired, probably by Louis B Mayer. What happened after that is not so clear. Supposedly when Irving Thalberg found out that Louis B Mayer had fired Keaton, he pulled some strings to try and get Keaton back, and someone was sent to tell Keaton he can go back to MGM but Keaton, stung by the fact he was fired in the first place, refused. But as far as I know, we only have Keaton's words for that last part. Thalberg's death shortly after that took away the one person at MGM who sided with Keaton and had some sway with Mayer. If I recall correctly, this was Blesh's account of what happened.

My... more strawmen blandished about. No one in this thread claimed that Natalie Talmadge was some sort of villain. Some of her actions were unkind, keeping their children away from Keaton for years, changing their last names. Along that vein, about the saddest thing I read about her was one of Keaton's son's quoted in the Meade book as saying that she never stopped criticizing Keaton despite the fact that he never heard his father say one negative thing about this mother, and that he had the sense that she was not much interested in beng a mother to him and his brother because she was always shipping them off to either boarding shools or relatives. Granted Meade is really out for dirt, but it's pretty amazing and sad that someone would feel compelled to say such a thing about his own mother in public.

But all the same, it seems to me that she had been rather unfairly treated by Antia Loos and Louise Brooks, whose scathing descriptions of her seem more catty than anything else. Especially Anita Loos, I read her book The Talmadge Girls, and I just thought, man, with a friend like Antia Loos.... Natalie Talmadge, was, according to many accounts, a bitter and resentful person, at least when it came to her ex-husband. But that doesn't make her a bad person. She had a very public and humiliating divorce, she had a lavish and glamourous lifestyle that she seems to have really enjoyed wiped out overnight, then she had her name all over the newspapers for the worst reasons. She must have had her good qualities. Keaton kept a photo of her in his office even towards the end of his life, she remained friends with Keaton's mother and sister long after the divorce, and her grandchildren spoke positively of her. She seemed to have been, like Keaton, a shy person who was very loyal to her family. But unlike Keaton, she didn't really have people sympathetic to her who were interested in speaking to the public.

I think it's a bit much to assume that no one asked Natalie Talmadge to tell her side of the story. Considering how Dardis and Meade were keen to show the darker side of Keaton, I would be surprised if no one made any attempts at all to interview her. It's more probably that she refused. That would be consistent with how she was never an outspoken person even at the height of her celebrity, and how all of the Talmadge sisters seems to have shunned publicity after the 30's. Not much of a loss to the world. One Lita Grey-style tell-all is probably one too many.

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.

I said absolutely nothing about "academic criticism". I said the films were commercial and critical bombs.

Limelight got very truncated release in the USA and attracted negative reviews from most media. By "media", I am not referring to academic critics but to newspaper and magazine reviewers, who were ordinary people whose opinions influenced the ordinary person. King In New York never got released in the USA at all when it was made. These two films did not get proper release until the 1970s. Limelight even qualified to win an Academy Award in the 1970s -- something that could not have happened if it had had a proper release when it was made. Point being: while both films were mildly successful in Europe (principally because they were seen as anti-American, and Europeans adore anything anti-American), they were complete duds on this side of the pond, and without American box office revenues, they could not be considered successful.

Countess From Hong Kong was panned by everyone, even most of the European critics, and failed at the box office too. M. Verdoux received scathing reviews from everyone except James Agee and Eric Bentley, and while Bentley was an artistic critic, Agee was about as "common man" as they come. I don't remember the details of its commercial reception but I think it just broke even. It was also the impetus for the infamous ganging-up on Chaplin by anti-communists at the press conference he gave following its premier -- a fine example of the hostile reviews it received.

Jim

I sure don't see much talk about Limelight being a flawed masterpiece; what good critiques I have seen cannot overlook the film's obvious problems that keep it far from being a great work. I would argue that if Buster Keaton were not in it, it would be more along the lines of the later two films rather than Verdoux.

Now Verdoux DOES get some of the "flawed masterpiece" talk, and probably merits it by being so daring. More than at any time in his career, Chaplin dangled himself over a fire -- and got burned very badly as a result. Hard to imagine the chain of events driving him from the country having quite the push without Verdoux' controversy stoking them.

So far, I love "A King in New York" and "Limelight." I have yet to see the other ones.
A successful movie is that which intelligent people feel affects them strongly. Successful
in terms of dollars and newspaper reviews doesn't mean much to me. Van Gogh
wouldn't have done to well, nor a large percentage of the other greats in history.

One has to watch out when they try to speak for the group opinion regarding the value
of artwork.

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.

The Talmadge family, from what I've read, seem like quite an unpleasant bunch. I believe they even lived with Buster and Natalie after the two were married. Yikes.

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.

The Talmadge family, from what I've read, seem like quite an unpleasant bunch. I believe they even lived with Buster and Natalie after the two were married. Yikes.

The Talmadge family, from what i've read, was well liked by almost everyone but Buster Keaton fans and Anita Loos (though she was happy enough to hang out with them when they were stars). Gee, we're just trying so hard to find someone to blame for all this. I know lot of people who have had bad, bitter divorces and are still mad about it years later. Why is Buster and Natalie's breakup so usual? Especially in those days (lot so long aga) before there was court-enforced visitation and shared custody, it wasn't usual for one parent to get shut out. How do you know Natalie lived her life in the past? I don't understand why the Meade book is wrong when it comes to Buster but right concerning Natalie.

greta

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.

The Talmadge family, from what I've read, seem like quite an unpleasant bunch. I believe they even lived with Buster and Natalie after the two were married. Yikes.

The Talmadge family, from what i've read, was well liked by almost everyone but Buster Keaton fans and Anita Loos (though she was happy enough to hang out with them when they were stars). Gee, we're just trying so hard to find someone to blame for all this. I know lot of people who have had bad, bitter divorces and are still mad about it years later. Why is Buster and Natalie's breakup so usual? Especially in those days (lot so long aga) before there was court-enforced visitation and shared custody, it wasn't usual for one parent to get shut out. How do you know Natalie lived her life in the past? I don't understand why the Meade book is wrong when it comes to Buster but right concerning Natalie.

greta

Ah, well then I guess I'd better read more then. I apologize for my generalization.

In the end, it's probably pointless to try pinpointing the reason why the marriage failed, or blame it on someone. Life isn't like the movies where there's a concrete villain on whom we can place all the fault.

The Talmadge family, from what i've read, was well liked by almost everyone but Buster Keaton fans and Anita Loos (though she was happy enough to hang out with them when they were stars). Gee, we're just trying so hard to find someone to blame for all this. I know lot of people who have had bad, bitter divorces and are still mad about it years later. Why is Buster and Natalie's breakup so usual? Especially in those days (lot so long aga) before there was court-enforced visitation and shared custody, it wasn't usual for one parent to get shut out. How do you know Natalie lived her life in the past? I don't understand why the Meade book is wrong when it comes to Buster but right concerning Natalie.

greta

Ah, well then I guess I'd better read more then. I apologize for my generalization.

If it's all derived from the same source, it won't read much differently. There is a biography of the Talmadges in the works now, although I don't know its ETA.

What do we do if that book calls Natalie Talmedge "a wet blanket?"

What do we do if that book calls Natalie Talmedge "a wet blanket?"

What do we do if it doesn't?

What do we do if that book calls Natalie Talmedge "a wet blanket?"

What do we do if it doesn't?

Perhaps it will turn her into a human being, you know, with a few good qualities, a few mistakes, a person trying to find her way in life. Like everybody else on the planet.

Simple stuff. One can hope.

Cheers,
Maureen

What do we do if that book calls Natalie Talmedge "a wet blanket?"

What do we do if it doesn't?

Well, we'll continue to argue pointlessly about people we don't know who are dead though we'll never know the whole story no matter how many books get written. Beats watching movies apparently.

Yawn,


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Perhaps it will turn her into a human being, you know, with a few good qualities, a few mistakes, a person trying to find her way in life. Like everybody else on the planet.

That would really apply to anyone, from Attila the Hun to Mother Theresa.

So, any new Keaton works in pipeline that someone may know about?

Cheers,
Maureen

So, any new Keaton works in pipeline that someone may know about?

Cheers,
Maureen

Yes, Eileen Whitfield is working on a bio. Her bio of Mary Pickford was excellent.

So, any new Keaton works in pipeline that someone may know about?

Cheers,
Maureen

Yes, Eileen Whitfield is working on a bio. Her bio of Mary Pickford was excellent.

I'll second that review. I just read it a month or so ago. Very thorough and fair.

So, any new Keaton works in pipeline that someone may know about?

Cheers,
Maureen

Yes, Eileen Whitfield is working on a bio. Her bio of Mary Pickford was excellent.

I'll second that review. I just read it a month or so ago. Very thorough and fair.

Based on your reviews, this book is now on hold for me at the library. And look, the Image DVD copy of Chaney's "Phanton of the Opera" is ready for me to pick up. Yay!

Cheers,
Maureen

Thanks, everybody. Interesting thread here! I am currently re-watching the Keaton films (or, in some cases, seeing them for the first time) thanks to the spiffy Blu-rays from Kino. Got The Saphead and Three Ages out of the way first.

I dug out the Dardis book and am re-reading it. I agree with those of you who said that it's a good place to start.

I'm awfully glad Simon Louvish hasn't written a book about Buster. His books are 49% interesting and 51% awful and I find them unreadable.

Agreed about Louvish. In his early bios of W.C. Fields and the Marx Bros, he dug out lots of invaluable info about their pre-cinema careers. His more recent books on Laurel & Hardy, Sennett and Chaplin are paint-by-numbers bios-for-hire.

Rob Farr wrote:

Agreed about Louvish. In his early bios of W.C. Fields and the Marx Bros, he dug out lots of invaluable info about their pre-cinema careers. His more recent books on Laurel & Hardy, Sennett and Chaplin are paint-by-numbers bios-for-hire.

I'm with you, Rob. The Louvish bios get incrementally less impressive if you read them in the order he wrote them. The Fields book was great; the Marx book was nearly as good; the Laurel & Hardy book was interesting, but will never replace the Skretvedt book; the less said about the Chaplin book, the better...it is a pointless exercise. I'm not even going to read his Sennett book; Brent Walker's tome seems the obvious acquisition on that subject.

This is a little off-topic, but how did you like Balducci's book on Hamilton?

I would recommend Buster Keaton: Tempest in a Flat Hat by Edward M. McPherson; also The Fall of Buster Keaton: His Films for MGM by James L. Neibaur. Both are excellent. I haven’t read Buster Keaton: The Persistence of Comedy by Imogen Smith yet, but I’ve heard it’s excellent. This website gives a good overview of the many books about Buster. Enjoy! http://www.busterkeaton.com/bookshelf.htm" target="_blank

Agreed about Louvish. In his early bios of W.C. Fields and the Marx Bros, he dug out lots of invaluable info about their pre-cinema careers. His more recent books on Laurel & Hardy, Sennett and Chaplin are paint-by-numbers bios-for-hire.

Rob, I was told that Louvish's Marx Bros. book took full advantage of Paul Wesolowski's considerable archive of research on the Marxes, as well as back issues of Paul's Fredonian Gazette. Paul should have written the Marx book on his own, he certainly didn't need Louvish.

Comparing Louvish's cutesy-pie book on W.C. Fields to the brilliant Fields bio that Jim Curtis wrote a few years later is like rating how Al Joy stands alongside of Buster Keaton.

This is a little off-topic, but how did you like Balducci's book on Hamilton?

Am I the only one who finds it peculiar that after saying he had the cooperation of Lloyd Hamilton's family in writing this book, the author then basically proceeds to badmouth them throughout the text?

Agreed about Louvish. In his early bios of W.C. Fields and the Marx Bros, he dug out lots of invaluable info about their pre-cinema careers. His more recent books on Laurel & Hardy, Sennett and Chaplin are paint-by-numbers bios-for-hire.

Rob, I was told that Louvish's Marx Bros. book took full advantage of Paul Wesolowski's considerable archive of research on the Marxes, as well as back issues of Paul's Fredonian Gazette. Paul should have written the Marx book on his own, he certainly didn't need Louvish.

Comparing Louvish's cutesy-pie book on W.C. Fields to the brilliant Fields bio that Jim Curtis wrote a few years later is like rating how Al Joy stands alongside of Buster Keaton.

Now now Ed, Louvish's Fields book was refreshingly welcome when it came out (several years before Curtis's book) and certainly worked hard toward getting the story set straight. Curtis's book was indeed a better book, but that's no reason to belittle Louvish's achievment at the time.

And Paul Wesolowski certainly should have written a book-----but he hasn't, and Louvish credits him, Joe Adamson, and all the others he utilized research from in his Marx Brothers Book, which, like it or not, is still in my eyes the best all-around book currently out there on the Marx Brothers that actually covers all facets of their careers, not just the movies. Louvish's later books deserve all the criticism they get, but his Fields and Marx Brother books were definitely a cut above all his later works.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

I don't know, Richard...for me at least, reading anything of Louvish's, with his succession of unfunny nonsequiturs sandwiched between nuggets of interest, somehow makes me feel like I'm watching a ballgame with Shemp Howard on my right, Charley Chase on my left, Matt McHugh in front, and Lee Tracy doing something unmentionable above me in the cheap seats...

Now now Ed, Louvish's Fields book was refreshingly welcome when it came out (several years before Curtis's book) and certainly worked hard toward getting the story set straight. Curtis's book was indeed a better book, but that's no reason to belittle Louvish's achievment at the time.
[snip}
Louvish's later books deserve all the criticism they get, but his Fields and Marx Brother books were definitely a cut above all his later works.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

Richard, based on your post I felt I had to revisit Simon Louvish's book on W.C. Fields. I dug out my copy to see if perhaps my opinion, based on memory, was leading me down the wrong path and maybe I was being unfair to the book and the author. I reread quite a bit of Simon's book last night...and this morning...and I see that an enormous amount of the facts about Fields and his life recounted in this book came right out of W.C. FIELDS BY HIMSELF (1973). The latter is a representative collection of his lifetime correspondence, unvarnished and intimate, providing raw insight into how Fields worked, his opinions on just about everything during his lifetime, and his relationships with Hattie, Carlotta, the studios, the censors, radio, and much more.

I wouldn't mind Simon's incorporation of so much of the earlier work on Fields nearly as much if it were not for his style of writing, which I continue to find unappealing with its clumsy attempts at humor, none of which works for me (guess I was spoiled, being brought up on Robert Benchley's stuff, which still makes me laugh out loud).

In Simon's book on Fields there is a great deal more about McIntyre & Heath, Weber & Fields, olios, traveling shows, etcetera, where Fields' story disappears for many pages at a time, which added next to nothing to the Fields story itself, nor did it help in developing an understanding of Fields' formative background (for me, at least).

I will take another look at Simon's book on the Marx Brothers...although again there's an earlier book - in this case Hector Arce's GROUCHO - that covered much of the same ground in a compelling, engaging manner.

The sad part is that I agree with Simon on his main thesis - that W.C. Fields was indeed one of the greatest comedians. Perhaps I'd appreciate Simon's style as a writer if he wrote about a different type of old school entertainer -- like a Jerry Lewis, Georgie Jessel, Bobby Clark or Milton Berle instead. I might actually enjoy reading what he could do with those guys.

Well this review gives Wesso's thoughts on the Louvish book and also explains why he hasn't done a book. Some relevant quotes:

Wesolowski offers Monkey Business the highest praise for an archivist who has devoted his life to maintaining the Groucho files: "It breaks new ground," he says. "Louvish's book has set a new benchmark."

and

The question, then, is, Why has Wesolowski lent out his collection to others when there's no one more suited to writing the definitive Marx Brothers book than he?

"I am a completist," he says. "Though I know more than anyone else, there are still bits and pieces I don't know, and I would rather know those things before I wrote the book. I began to publish the Freedonia Gazette in 1978, and I thought I could write an article, and if I discovered any additional information I could put a note somewhere updating the article. I mean, I've also worked on all the TV specials about the brothers--an A&E biography, The Unknown Marx Brothers, The Marx Brothers in a Nutshell. Sometimes, people will say, 'Gee, that wasn't very good. Why did you agree to help them?' I guess sometimes you know this person's not going to do a good job, but if I help, it will be better than it would have been. It's easier to help correct them and not let them write a book of mistakes and let them perpetuate throughout history."

I also come down on the plus side for Louvish's Fields bio.

I also come down on the plus side for Louvish's Fields bio.

Robert, how does it compare for you to Jim Curtis' bio on Fields?

Well this review gives Wesso's thoughts on the Louvish book and also explains why he hasn't done a book. Some relevant quotes:

Wesolowski offers Monkey Business the highest praise for an archivist who has devoted his life to maintaining the Groucho files: "It breaks new ground," he says. "Louvish's book has set a new benchmark."

and

The question, then, is, Why has Wesolowski lent out his collection to others when there's no one more suited to writing the definitive Marx Brothers book than he?

"I am a completist," he says. "Though I know more than anyone else, there are still bits and pieces I don't know, and I would rather know those things before I wrote the book. I began to publish the Freedonia Gazette in 1978, and I thought I could write an article, and if I discovered any additional information I could put a note somewhere updating the article. I mean, I've also worked on all the TV specials about the brothers--an A&E biography, The Unknown Marx Brothers, The Marx Brothers in a Nutshell. Sometimes, people will say, 'Gee, that wasn't very good. Why did you agree to help them?' I guess sometimes you know this person's not going to do a good job, but if I help, it will be better than it would have been. It's easier to help correct them and not let them write a book of mistakes and let them perpetuate throughout history."

I also come down on the plus side for Louvish's Fields bio.

There have been any number of folk in our field who have spent far more time researching than writing, and we have been far more fortunate to have their work shared with those who write than most probably know. Sam Gill's name appears on the co-authorship on one book, but he has been responsible for sending others out on the writing of countless books, and his voluminous research and colletion has graced many more. Louvish may be the oppposite, but the contract with his publisher has made him perhaps write more books than he would have liked, and been able to spend less time on them. Simon's main interest in his writing seem to be family ties, and early vaudeville and music hall, and thats where the strengths in his writings mostly lie. His Laurel and Hardy book even breaks new ground in those areas, however much warmed over the movie part of that book comes off.

So perhaps Ed just doesn't like Louvish's writing style, and that's fair enough, but I would still never consign his books to the same trash heap my copies of Charles Highams or Richard Schickels books sit.


RICHARD M ROBERTS