Dave Newhouse: The bottomless fall of Fatty Arbuckle

[Frederica]

OK, I finished reading this effort. A book written from a legal historical standpoint, with careful, studied analysis of the events, would be a useful addition to the canon.

This is not that book.

[Gene Zonarich]

http://www.mercurynews.com/columns/ci_1 ... ck_check=1

Dave Newhouse: The bottomless fall of Fatty Arbuckle
By Dave Newhouse
Oakland Tribune columnist
Posted: 07/03/2011 12:00:00 AM PDT
Updated: 07/03/2011 03:11:10 PM PDT
Life 90 years ago was so radically different from the present that the tweeting generation might think it fictional. Television hadn't been invented, radio was a brand-new novelty, and the movie screen was voiceless.

Newspapers were the media back then, but some in the printed press leaned toward the fictional rather than the factual as they sought to convict Arbuckle prematurely during his three -- yes, three -- manslaughter trials.

-- Arbuckle was so scandalized that he, too, became a pariah in the minds of the public, which never forgave him.

Just a few quick thoughts:

"Life" may have been radically different 90 years ago. Human nature was not. Humans looking for "justice" for an alleged victim or an alleged perpetrator will always do so with prejudices that are not changed by facts or someone's interpretation of facts.

The media will always "lean" toward whatever story sells best.

Prosecutors are elected politicians and political apointees (as are many medical examiners, and much more so in the 1920s than now), and high-profile cases involving celebrities who are charged with a crime involving some form of moral depravity are the stuff of dreams for them -- win or lose (even an acquittal won't sway the ideologically committed).

And as we've seen recently, someone doesn't have to be a celebrity before the crime is committed, the media and the sheep who follow them will create the celebrity, then take up "sides" and wage war against the other side who is "immoral" or "stupid," "liberal" or "conservative."

One more thing -- mention was made of the Hearst newspapers in the vilification of Arbuckle. I believe that Arbuckle directed a rather high profile project for Cosmopolitan Productions and MGM, "The Red Mill," in 1926 under the pseudonym "William Goodrich." The film's, star was Marion Davies. Is anyone aware of how or why this occurred? It could hardly have been a secret.

[Frederica]

Prosecutors are elected politicians and political apointees (as are many medical examiners, and much more so in the 1920s than now), and high-profile cases involving celebrities who are charged with a crime involving some form of moral depravity are the stuff of dreams for them -- win or lose (even an acquittal won't sway the ideologically committed).

High profile cases are also the stuff of nightmares for a DA. There is overwhelming pressure to prosecute, even in cases where there isn't sufficient evidence to convict.

One more thing -- mention was made of the Hearst newspapers in the vilification of Arbuckle. I believe that Arbuckle directed a rather high profile project for Cosmopolitan Productions and MGM, "The Red Mill," in 1926 under the pseudonym "William Goodrich." The film's, star was Marion Davies. Is anyone aware of how or why this occurred? It could hardly have been a secret.

Dunno how Arbuckle was hired for the film. Do know the "Hearst papers" thing is a crock.

[Brooksie]

Dunno how Arbuckle was hired for the film. Do know the "Hearst papers" thing is a crock.

Most sources say or imply that Marion Davies felt sorry for him and wanted to give him another shot, so used her influence to get him into the directors chair.

[Rollo Treadway]

Do know the "Hearst papers" thing is a crock.

I'm no expert on the case at all, but didn't that composite picture of Roscoe behind bars appear in the Hearst papers? (And later inspire that line in Citizen Kane: "If I ran a newspaper ... I wouldn't show a picture of him in a prison cell, so his wife could see it, or his children.")

[Frederica]

Do know the "Hearst papers" thing is a crock.

I'm no expert on the case at all, but didn't that composite picture of Roscoe behind bars appear in the Hearst papers? (And later inspire that line in Citizen Kane: "If I ran a newspaper ... I wouldn't show a picture of him in a prison cell, so his wife could see it, or his children.")

Yep, it did. The same type of composite photos also ran in non-Hearst papers. If you really want hysteria, I direct you to the San Francisco Bulletin or the Los Angeles Record (among others), neither of which was a Hearst paper.

Almost all papers covered the case to some extent or the other. The Christian Science Monitor and African-American newspapers were exceptions. The Hearst papers didn't cover the case any differently than they covered anything else, and the Hearst coverage in each city was more a reflection of the interests of their subscriber base and the tastes of the individual managing editor--just like it was with other newspapers. The amount of coverage in Hearst's New York papers is different from that of Chicago, Los Angeles, or San Francisco, even though sometimes the actual story is the same (if it was derived from newswires, which outside of LA and SF it usually was), and it's usually similar to that of the other newspapers in the same city.

Although, frankly, the Hearst papers are a lot more fun and informative to read. That Hearst guy knew a good reporter when he saw one.

Consider the source.