The Blackbird wrote:Some 33 years ago I stood in front of the house Arbuckle lived in in 1921 and I'll never forget reflecting on his whole tragic story. I feel like I've been waiting all my life to see these films. It's not quite accurate, but I have been waiting a good 35 years (and that's long enough) since first reading Arbuckle's story in THE DAY THE LAUGHTER STOPPED. Now, about four years ago there was a brief discussion here about that book and I read comments to the effect that it's a pack of lies. I innocently inquired for an elaboration of this view and a certain poster who shall remain nameless decided the one and only response to give to my question was an hilariously condescending "How long have you been on this board?" [The answer was two or three years and I had never noticed anything about the book's supposed fantasy content before.]
Actually, hon, that was me. And it was a serious question, not intended to be condescending; we'd discussed the issue at length before, so I thought I'd refer you to the previous discussion(s) rather than hash it out again. You didn't seem interested.
Figuring I need this like a hole in the head, I left the thread and never looked at it again. In any case, Yallop's thesis still remains solid: Arbuckle didn't do squat. If this man ever laid an inappropriate finger on another human being in his entire life I have yet to hear about it and I'll champion his cause to the limit. I always wondered what happened to this Maude "Bambina" Delmont clown after her vaudeville tour, ripping down the curtain that covered Hollywood's debauchery. I remember reading a reference to someone of that name dying in 1926, which might explain it, but whenever she kicked off the fact she never testified in court, which is incredible in itself, tells you all you need to know. As for those who say all of Arbuckle's friends, starting with Keaton, kept "suspiciously" quiet during the trials, I am still waiting for them to explain just what the heck they could have done, aside of express their confidence he was innocent. I'm still wondering if the story of Arbuckle inadvertently catching Virginia Rappe in the abdomen with his knee when she drunkenly tickled him could not be true, as it would handily explain pretty much the whole thing, including her delirious "Roscoe hurt me" on her deathbed.
So much here. Have you read Gregg Merritt's Room 1218? It's a more updated take on the case and far more accurate than either Yallop or Edmonds.
The story about the tickling comes from Andy Edmunds, who got it from Joe Rock. Why you would ask Joe Rock about what happened at that party is beyond me, but there you have it. You can believe or disbelieve me, but if that story is true there are some problems. Arbuckle did not tell anyone he kicked Virginia Rappe, accidentally or otherwise, in the abdomen. Pretty sure her doctors would like to have known that, the knowledge may have saved her life. It also means Arbuckle was, in fact, guilty--he was tried for felony manslaughter, not for murder, and kicking someone and rupturing a major organ while you're committing a felony (that pesky alcohol again), and then not telling anyone about it, is pretty much felony manslaughter. It's always tickled me that Edmunds produces that story at the end of her book as if it was a rabbit pulled out of her hat--she seems to have so little comprehension of what the charges and trial were about she was clueless as to what she was really saying.
Arbuckle did not testify to this. So if the story is true, he was not only guilty, he perjured himself. I think the story is a crock.
As to The Round Up. I was kind of taken aback by it. I realize Arbuckle was newly working in features and that he was trying to extend himself beyond pure slapstick, but in RU he was shunted off stage for lengthy periods and the character he played was a sad sack--he was never a sad sack in his shorts. They are wonderfully anarchic, and Arbuckle always gets the girl! (or Luke, as the case may be). I'll have to see more of the features.
)
