New bio of Cecil B. DeMille by Scott Eyman

[Harlett O'Dowd]

There is nothing in his Fields book which hadn't already been researched and written about in previous, better written bios of the subject (James Curtis

Gary J.

That isn't even possible, since the Louvish book on Fields was published 4 years before the Curtis book.

There you go again - letting facts get in the way of an opinion!

[MattBarry]

I don't understand the Louvish hate. The only book of his I've read is the Fields one, but it seemed solid enough and with two interesting contributions to make: one, he identified a world tour where Fields was evidently passing some female off as his wife to the press (as he showed that Hattie was home during that time), and two, he traces how some of the famous routines evolved over decades. Nothing sensational, maybe not the most thrilling prose but not bad. Something else may be a better book in each case, but I don't see any reason to lump Louvish in with the "And then Randolph Scott told me all about gay Hollywood right before he died" crowd.

I certainly don't categorize Louvish as a "hack" as some others do, but I will say that he seems to rely increasingly on the research of others (all properly cited, of course, just to be clear!). His "Fields" book is undoubtedly his best, largely because he did present a lot of research that had been missing from earlier Fields bios (Everson's was more an appreciation of his film work). I was a little underwhelmed by his Marx Bros. book, but that's probably just because Joe Adamson gave us such an engaging and thoughtful analysis of their work in his 1973 book.

I really lost interest after his Laurel and Hardy book. I'd picked it up hoping for some new insights into their working relationship and biographical information, but much of the book is heavily quoted directly from Randy Skretvedt's (again, I stress, with proper attribution). The problem is, as someone else commented at the time of the book's release, that it has the effect of making you want to go back to the source and read that instead. Randy's book is a meticulously researched production history of their films, and reading chunks of it paraphrased or quoted within the context of Louvish's biography approach just doesn't work.

I did give his "Keystone" book a try and found it nearly un-readable. I couldn't quite understand the approach he was taking with it.

[MattBarry]

There is nothing in his Fields book which hadn't already been researched and written about in previous, better written bios of the subject (James Curtis, Ronald Fields). The same goes for his other retread books he did on the Marx Bros., Laurel & Hardy, Sennett....

The guy's a hack.

Gary J.

This is really an unfair dismissal of his work (and, as someone else has already noted, Curtis' book came out several years after Louvish's).

That said, I do find his writing style very hard to engage with. Unlike the best film writers-Everson, say, or Joe Adamson-Louvish's writing never makes me want to seek out the films he's writing about (even when they're ones I know and love, like the work of the classic comedians he's written on). I still say his Fields bio is his best work.

[Brooksie]

I did give his "Keystone" book a try and found it nearly un-readable. I couldn't quite understand the approach he was taking with it

This was my experience exactly. The research, the information - all of that was in place; I just couldn't figure out why reading a book on a subject I was very interested in felt like such a chore. I can't quite put my finger on what it was - perhaps the lack of a narrative arc? I wasn't quite sure what or whose story was being told, or why.

[barafan]

Well, I'll just chime in here, and to be clear - I don't 'hate' Louvish. I did like the three books of his I read - Keystone, Mae West and Cecil B. DeMille - but of the three, Keystone was the driest piece of work. I had picked it up (as a silents newbie) hoping for some good insight into Roscoe Arbuckle and Mabel Normand (especially after Betty Harper Fusell's Mabel, which I found nearly unintelligible), but the book was dull, dull, dull. I thought perhaps it was just me, but I see others have the same complaint.

So again, I don't hate Louvish. I suppose a simple 'meh' would be my reaction to him.

[boblipton]

I have only read Louvish's Sennett book and found it unrewarding as he simultaneously dug for dirt and offered no insight to the creative process. I much prefer Brent Walker's book, even with the typographical errors.

I have started reading Mr. Eyman's Demille book -- I enjoyed LION OF HOLLYWOOD very much and after the first hundred pages I can say I find it witty, insightful and a pleasure to read -- I like his occasional asides.

Bob

[drednm]

I agree Fusell's book on Mabel Normand was terrible.

[boblipton]

I did give his "Keystone" book a try and found it nearly un-readable. I couldn't quite understand the approach he was taking with it

This was my experience exactly. The research, the information - all of that was in place; I just couldn't figure out why reading a book on a subject I was very interested in felt like such a chore. I can't quite put my finger on what it was - perhaps the lack of a narrative arc? I wasn't quite sure what or whose story was being told, or why.

I suspect that Louvish doesn't get the comedy style that Sennett mined, particularly the early Keystone stuff, with its reliance on burlesqued plots (including a lot of early Griffith) and its reliance on stage conventions that even then were going out of favor. He looks upon the entire process of comedy of mechanical and ignores the fact that Sennett was extremely progressive in technical terms, but apparently a lousy businessman and once real competition showed up with better business models, he was doomed.

I can understand Louvish not understanding why Sennett's stuff was funny -- while boiling oil and melted lead is always funny, burlesque depends on knowing what is being mocked. But if you don't get it, why write a book? Unless you've already got the contract, of course.

Bob

[buskeat]

I just finished Eyman's DeMille biography and think it's his finest work yet. A terrific read.

[boblipton]

I've just finished it and go even further: it's the best book written about Hollywood yet, and that includes Brownlow's THE PARADE'S GONE BY. Buy it and read it, folks.

Bob

[westegg]

I finished it last night (on my Kindle!). By far one of the most memorable show biz bios I've read. A classic. I had no idea Mr. DeMille was so kindly disposed towards wildlife; makes my respect for him soar even more!

[George O'Brien]

I've just finished it and go even further: it's the best book written about Hollywood yet, and that includes Brownlow's THE PARADE'S GONE BY. Buy it and read it, folks.

Bob

I stopped at my local Borders bookstore today and they did not have a single copy to even thiink about buying.

I have read all of Eyman's other books, and this one is getting a lot of positive one liners in this thread. Could someone explain a little why this book is so good?

[drednm]

Well I'm a slow reader and plowing through it. It's quite good but here's a minor omission.

Eyman mentions DeMille's work with Martha Graham and Ruth St. Denis but doesn't mention Ted Shawn or his role as the faun in Don't Change Your Husband.

For the DeMille domestic dramas he mentions the flashbacks to biblical or other times (Swanson and the lion, etc) but neglects Shawn, who was certainly as notable at the time as his wife, St. Denis.

Shawn's short role is important in this film because it's part of DeMille's depiction of Swanson's imaginings of wealth, pleasure. and love (as promised by oily Lew Cody).

[rudyfan]

I've just finished it and go even further: it's the best book written about Hollywood yet, and that includes Brownlow's THE PARADE'S GONE BY. Buy it and read it, folks.

Bob

I'm nearly done and am enjoying it tremendously. It's a mighty fine bio but I'll be a contrarian Bob, not better than Parade's Gone By imho and we know ymmv.

[George O'Brien]

Picked it up at my local Barnes and Noble, and it is excellent, very much in the way his book on Louis B. Mayer was. He makes fascinating a man popularly considered one dimensional.










"I refuse to discuss anything with a woman who cries in advance."

[Wm. Charles Morrow]

This thread has been moribund for over a year and a half, and Scott Eyman’s biography of DeMille is no longer “news,” but I feel it’s worth reviving the topic for those of us who didn’t get around to reading the book when it was hot off the press.

As I mentioned upthread, I went to the MoMA screening of Kindling and The Golden Chance in autumn 2010, introduced by Mr. Eyman, and it was a memorable experience. Like a lot of others who have commented, I’ve never especially liked DeMille as a personality or a filmmaker (except for a handful of his silent features, especially the Swanson vehicles) but those two films, both made in 1915, are excellent, as good as the dramas Griffith or Tourneur or their peers were making at the time. And I noted in my post that I was looking forward to reading the new bio, but what with one thing and another I didn’t get around to it until just the past couple of weeks.

It’s a great book, really first rate. It’s thoroughly researched, beautifully written, and gives not only a nuanced picture of DeMille’s character but also a balanced assessment of his work. Reading it makes me want to seek out some of the films I haven’t seen yet -- especially The Godless Girl -- and revisit some of the ones I haven’t seen in a long time, like Reap the Wild Wind. As for the man himself, I found as I went along that, just when I would start to decide he was a real S.O.B. after all, an anecdote would pop up revealing his personal warmth, or his self-deprecating humor. All told he was neither a hero nor a villain, entirely, and his career (somewhat like his later films) was impressive for its sheer scale. I found colorful details on every page, and a lot of interesting info about the people who worked for DeMille, from H. B. Warner to Paulette Goddard.

I’d rank this book alongside the Victor Fleming bio by Michael Sragow, and the Preston Sturges bio by James Curtis, among the very best director biographies I‘ve read. That said, I haven’t yet gotten to the Von Stroheim bio by Arthur Lennig, which has been sitting on my shelf even longer than the DeMille book. That one is next!

Any other thoughts on the DeMille book, from my fellow latecomers who’ve caught up with it only recently?

[Frederica]

It’s a great book, really first rate. It’s thoroughly researched, beautifully written, and gives not only a nuanced picture of DeMille’s character but also a balanced assessment of his work. Reading it makes me want to seek out some of the films I haven’t seen yet -- especially The Godless Girl -- and revisit some of the ones I haven’t seen in a long time, like Reap the Wild Wind. As for the man himself, I found as I went along that, just when I would start to decide he was a real S.O.B. after all, an anecdote would pop up revealing his personal warmth, or his self-deprecating humor. All told he was neither a hero nor a villain, entirely, and his career (somewhat like his later films) was impressive for its sheer scale. I found colorful details on every page, and a lot of interesting info about the people who worked for DeMille, from H. B. Warner to Paulette Goddard.

I’d rank this book alongside the Victor Fleming bio by Michael Sragow, and the Preston Sturges bio by James Curtis, among the very best director biographies I‘ve read. That said, I haven’t yet gotten to the Von Stroheim bio by Arthur Lennig, which has been sitting on my shelf even longer than the DeMille book. That one is next!

Any other thoughts on the DeMille book, from my fellow latecomers who’ve caught up with it only recently?

What you said. Word.