Silent Film Tragedies

[Wisconsin Mark]

There is nothing remotely "off the beam" about post-modernist skepticism concerning "factuality" and the possibility of establishing "facts." It is a hotly debated, yes, but quite mundane part of contemporary discourse. Surely many are familiar with Michel Foucault's insight that the "facts" are established by those who have the power to establish them? This stuff is a half-century old, at least.

I'm familiar with it. And I disagree.

Using anti-foundationalist thinkers to temper and consider the limits of human knowledge is one thing. Taking their views to their logical extremes leads to values that I find anti-scientific and anti-Enlightenment. Certain values and practices, I would argue, have had demonstrably better results for humanity than others. Research-based medicine has saved more people than Mary Baker Eddy; fact-based history (as in the cases of Ince and Murnau) provides more insight on individual lives than a "cultural studies" approach that incorporates non-factual audience receptions of historical events.

Falsifiability is something I value very much in historical research. Anti-foundationalist writers, taken at their word, seem intent on attacking humans' ability to prove and disprove facts. Perhaps this is their goal, as they seem to be working from a markedly different set of values than fact-based researchers (in the sciences or humanities) tend to. But having tried to see it their way, I cannot accept their assertions.

-HA

Fine! This is a arguable point of view, and you are engaging with what I am saying. You understand what anti-foundationalism is about. I don't consider myself an extreme anti-foundationalist, but I would appear to be at a farther point along that spectrum than you are. Certainly I am a "cultural studies" guy, through and through. And although I too see the value of Popperian falsifiability, I don't think that in science or history, anything much is ever really "settled." (Thomas Kuhn is, unsurprisingly, an influence on my thinking on this point.) I respect your position as a thought-out one.

With reference to my little list that has caused all this fuss - it's kind of gratifying! - let me repeat myself a bit. It is a truism in philosophy that "truth" is difficult to define, and "facts" are difficult to establish. Proceeding on my philosophical assumptions, I could never feel that I was on secure grounds in stating that I had a list of facts - not if I put ten times more effort and research into the list than I am doing. I can, however, feel reasonably secure in stating that I have a list of what are commonly reported as facts. That list would be different at whatever different time one composed it, clearly.

[Donald Binks]

Wow, now I've been told off several times in the thread and invited to "**** off" in a PM. Fun times!

That indeed is unfortunate.

I am oft-times absolutely amazed as to how carried away some Nitratevillians are. I believe it quite fun to read and respond to posts that are interesting and enlightening. It is a way a niche group of nutters can get together without being laughed at for an interest in a subject not many take all that seriously.

I too have been told to go and take a long walk off a short pier, but if anything, this only encourages me to dig in and make more posts - hopefully in a humourous vein, which will further exasperate the ever-so serious pundits who will examine a film frame by frame rather than take it as a whole for its entertainment value.

I have found this particular subject of yours quite fascinating, in a macabre way - and what's the problem with a little macabreness between friends? So, ignore all the disparaging remarks and continue on regardless. Mind you, I had to look up and find out what "post-modernism" was. I am not up with a whole lot of this intellectual type talk. I'm just one of the ordinary dumb members of an audience at the pictures.

So, in short, keep calm and carry on!

[Wisconsin Mark]

Wow, now I've been told off several times in the thread and invited to "**** off" in a PM. Fun times!

That indeed is unfortunate.

I am oft-times absolutely amazed as to how carried away some Nitratevillians are. I believe it quite fun to read and respond to posts that are interesting and enlightening. It is a way a niche group of nutters can get together without being laughed at for an interest in a subject not many take all that seriously.

I too have been told to go and take a long walk off a short pier, but if anything, this only encourages me to dig in and make more posts - hopefully in a humourous vein, which will further exasperate the ever-so serious pundits who will examine a film frame by frame rather than take it as a whole for its entertainment value.

I have found this particular subject of yours quite fascinating, in a macabre way - and what's the problem with a little macabreness between friends? So, ignore all the disparaging remarks and continue on regardless. Mind you, I had to look up and find out what "post-modernism" was. I am not up with a whole lot of this intellectual type talk. I'm just one of the ordinary dumb members of an audience at the pictures.

So, in short, keep calm and carry on!

Thank you, sir, thank you VERY much indeed. I'm actually quite enjoying the discussion. As a newbie - I signed up for the board years ago, but never looked at it much, or posted until this thread - I have inadvertently pressed some hot buttons. Now, knowing what they are, I can do so on purpose!

[Grace]

Hmm, I'm a big believer in 'reading against the grain' and think that documents should be studied within their context and not taken at face value, so I guess I could be said to have a 'post-modern' approach to history. However, the post-modern approach becomes problematic if it is taken to imply that there is no fact or fiction, but that in fact everything is of equal value – i.e. historical research becomes completely useless. Always doubting everything is healthy in a historian, but that does not mean that all documents lie. The post-modern approach that Monsieur Foucault and others advocate(d) does not mean this – it means being aware of the things you listed, e.g. that documents have often been manipulated and that knowledge and power go hand in hand. This means that when we want to study why person X died, we should carefully analyse and interrogate the sources we have – it does not mean that no cause of death can be established, or that official documents necessarily lie. This is what Ince's and Murnau's historians have done, and they have determined that X is the most probable cause of death. Anger's book is based on stories he came up with in his head, like you said – he did not write his book by going back to sources and carefully analysing and interrogating them. Therefore seeing his book as anything but a reflection of 1960s myths about the gilded age of Hollywood is very questionable; comparing Anger and say, Brian Taves' book about Ince is therefore absurd and definitely "a little out of step with developments in contemporary academic history and philosophy."

" my list CANNOT be a list of "actual" causes of death, but can be a list of what are commonly reported, in popular reference sources and elsewhere, as the causes of death. In disputed cases, that sometimes does include rumors."

I think this is a good example of taking the post-modern approach a bit too far. Of course we can get all metaphysical and say that we can never be sure of anything, fair enough, but then if we take this approach, what's the point of this thread? Surely listing different possible deaths implies that one of them must have been the real cause of death? Or even, if none of them is the cause of death – one thing we can be sure of is that there was a person X, and that person X died. Hence there must be a cause of death. And if historical researchers with sound knowledge of the different historiographical approaches (including the post-modern) and a healthy sense of skepticism about all sources have determined that based on the material we have, the most likely reason for person X's death was X and there are no documents (fairytales written 40 years later aren't reliable documents) to contradict this, then I don't see how that is debatable just because there are rumours flying around (unless of course those rumours reveal 'blind spots' in the historical research)? You listed some deaths as disputed, which scholarship, following Foucault, doesn't find disputed – hence what you've said is very controversial and I don't think you can say it's just because you have a post-modern approach to history.

I guess what I am trying to say with this long-winded text is that while I agree with you that documents are often 'unstable', the things you have said are just rumours. You have not actually criticized the historical research that historians have done – you've just believed the rumours because in theory they could be true. Yet it doesn't really make sense that you would mention these rumours as serious if you haven't actually gone and read the scholarship on the subject. There would be no problem if you had, say, studied the Ince case in depth by reading all the important Hearst/Ince books and articles and then looked at whether the rumours reveal 'blind spots' and then declared the cause of death as disputed – but it looks like you just give space for rumours because they are there, and that you 'prioritize' rumours. I think we've understood Foucault very differently because I don't think this is what he meant at all.

[Joe Migliore]

Harold Aherne wrote:

Using anti-foundationalist thinkers to temper and consider the limits of human knowledge is one thing. Taking their views to their logical extremes leads to values that I find anti-scientific and anti-Enlightenment. Certain values and practices, I would argue, have had demonstrably better results for humanity than others. Research-based medicine has saved more people than Mary Baker Eddy; fact-based history (as in the cases of Ince and Murnau) provides more insight on individual lives than a "cultural studies" approach that incorporates non-factual audience receptions of historical events.

Falsifiability is something I value very much in historical research. Anti-foundationalist writers, taken at their word, seem intent on attacking humans' ability to prove and disprove facts. Perhaps this is their goal, as they seem to be working from a markedly different set of values than fact-based researchers (in the sciences or humanities) tend to. But having tried to see it their way, I cannot accept their assertions.

Eloquently stated, Harold, and I think the default position of any serious historian. Wisconsin Mark is poisoning the well by reducing every argument to an article of faith. (i.e. the validity of a newspaper story and a death certificate being equally matched.) He has no problem posting inaccurate information, his background in philosophy evidently exonerating him from observing a tenet of basic human decency. Perhaps when he gets his big boy pants he could put his real name on his opinions.

[Wisconsin Mark]

Hmm, I'm a big believer in 'reading against the grain' and think that documents should be studied within their context and not taken at face value, so I guess I could be said to have a 'post-modern' approach to history. However, the post-modern approach becomes problematic if it is taken to imply that there is no fact or fiction, but that in fact everything is of equal value – i.e. historical research becomes completely useless. Always doubting everything is healthy in a historian, but that does not mean that all documents lie. The post-modern approach that Monsieur Foucault and others advocate(d) does not mean this – it means being aware of the things you listed, e.g. that documents have often been manipulated and that knowledge and power go hand in hand. This means that when we want to study why person X died, we should carefully analyse and interrogate the sources we have – it does not mean that no cause of death can be established, or that official documents necessarily lie. This is what Ince's and Murnau's historians have done, and they have determined that X is the most probable cause of death. Anger's book is based on stories he came up with in his head, like you said – he did not write his book by going back to sources and carefully analysing and interrogating them. Therefore seeing his book as anything but a reflection of 1960s myths about the gilded age of Hollywood is very questionable; comparing Anger and say, Brian Taves' book about Ince is therefore absurd and definitely "a little out of step with developments in contemporary academic history and philosophy."

" my list CANNOT be a list of "actual" causes of death, but can be a list of what are commonly reported, in popular reference sources and elsewhere, as the causes of death. In disputed cases, that sometimes does include rumors."

I think this is a good example of taking the post-modern approach a bit too far. Of course we can get all metaphysical and say that we can never be sure of anything, fair enough, but then if we take this approach, what's the point of this thread? Surely listing different possible deaths implies that one of them must have been the real cause of death? Or even, if none of them is the cause of death – one thing we can be sure of is that there was a person X, and that person X died. Hence there must be a cause of death. And if historical researchers with sound knowledge of the different historiographical approaches (including the post-modern) and a healthy sense of skepticism about all sources have determined that based on the material we have, the most likely reason for person X's death was X and there are no documents (fairytales written 40 years later aren't reliable documents) to contradict this, then I don't see how that is debatable just because there are rumours flying around (unless of course those rumours reveal 'blind spots' in the historical research)? You listed some deaths as disputed, which scholarship, following Foucault, doesn't find disputed – hence what you've said is very controversial and I don't think you can say it's just because you have a post-modern approach to history.

I guess what I am trying to say with this long-winded text is that while I agree with you that documents are often 'unstable', the things you have said are just rumours. You have not actually criticized the historical research that historians have done – you've just believed the rumours because in theory they could be true. Yet it doesn't really make sense that you would mention these rumours as serious if you haven't actually gone and read the 'proper' historical research on the subject. There would be no problem if you had, say, studied the Ince case in depth by reading all the important Hearst/Ince books and articles and then looked at whether the rumours reveal 'blind spots' and then declared their cause of death as disputed – but it looks like you just give space for rumours because they are there, and that you 'prioritize' rumours. I think we've understood Foucault very differently.

"Disputed" as terminology in my list means that the cause of death HAS been disputed (and almost inevitably therefore still is). The word is used only eight times, and in only a couple of those cases is it likely that anyone would take exception - Ince, Psilander (as I have discovered). As far as I know, tell me otherwise if I'm wrong, the debates concerning Robert Harron, Thelma Todd, Olive Thomas, and Mary Nolan are not settled, and probably no one is even much concerned about Jeanette Loff or Patterson Dial. The word "disputed" does not come up in the Murnau entry at all; there is no questionable information there. I never included the Anger rumors in the entry itself because I knew they were unsubstantiated; as I have repeatedly said, I only mentioned that information as an aside in a post.

So I've got to say that you are severely overstating the prevalence of the issue that bothers you in the list itself, and therefore substantially misrepresenting what I have been doing. I actually re-wrote MANY of the lines in the list to reflect the information that people have added here - even people whom I have already figured out that I dislike. I revised the Ince entry. I'm not inflexible.

It's a pastime - you're talking as if it's a serious scholarly project intended for publication, on which I should lavish weeks of research to get the "facts" as close to the standard you suggest as I possibly could. But it's not that. I never claimed it was that. I think I have been quite clear about what I did claim. You may think I am taking post-modernism too far, but it's my project for my amusement, and that of anyone else here who may also find it amusing.

I never equated Taves and Anger. Never even referred to them in the same breath. You are extrapolating unfairly there. I never cited Anger in the list itself. I mentioned him (a great film-maker, by the way) in passing merely, and got slammed into the next state. Is there some homophobia operating here? Hollywood Babylon is a key queer studies text, after all.

I don't agree with your reading of Foucault. I believe that he would flatly deny, not the existence of "facts" per se, but the notion that there can ever be any such thing as an impartial history objectively based upon facts. A lot of philosophers would deny that. A fair number of contemporary historians would, too. To repeat myself again, the idea that anything much is ever really "settled" in history strikes me as a nice fantasy. Even if you could get all the facts "straight," which you can't, history doesn't end with facts, it barely begins with them. And there will never be general agreement about interpretations of history.

[Wisconsin Mark]

Harold Aherne wrote:

Using anti-foundationalist thinkers to temper and consider the limits of human knowledge is one thing. Taking their views to their logical extremes leads to values that I find anti-scientific and anti-Enlightenment. Certain values and practices, I would argue, have had demonstrably better results for humanity than others. Research-based medicine has saved more people than Mary Baker Eddy; fact-based history (as in the cases of Ince and Murnau) provides more insight on individual lives than a "cultural studies" approach that incorporates non-factual audience receptions of historical events.

Falsifiability is something I value very much in historical research. Anti-foundationalist writers, taken at their word, seem intent on attacking humans' ability to prove and disprove facts. Perhaps this is their goal, as they seem to be working from a markedly different set of values than fact-based researchers (in the sciences or humanities) tend to. But having tried to see it their way, I cannot accept their assertions.

Eloquently stated, Harold, and I think the default position of any serious historian. Wisconsin Mark is poisoning the well by reducing every argument to an article of faith. (i.e. the validity of a newspaper story and a death certificate being equally matched.) He has no problem posting inaccurate information, his background in philosophy evidently exonerating him from observing a tenet of basic human decency. Perhaps when he gets his big boy pants he could put his real name on his opinions.

Au contraire, I have posted as accurate information as I can in the list, and any citation of disputes or rumors is clearly flagged. Pure straw man argument in play here; you might try again.

Oh, and by the way:

Mark R. Harris
Profesor de humanidades
Tecnologico de Monterrey, Campus Sinaloa
Blvd. Pedro Infante 3773
Culiacan, CP 80100, Sinaloa, Mexico
+52 (667) 759-1600
[email protected]" target="_blank
[email protected]" target="_blank

I bet I won't see any of my critics doing that. Took your dare there, dude.

[Wisconsin Mark]

Grace wrote in her revised post:

"... it looks like you just give space for rumours because they are there, and that you 'prioritize' rumours. I think we've understood Foucault very differently because I don't think this is what he meant at all."

If a rumor had never had any currency, it would be of little or no historical interest. The only places in the list where "rumors" are truly in play are Ince and Psilander. I mentioned Murnau rumors outside the list itself. The other cases of disputes are, as far as I know, actual and active disputes. How is this "prioritizing" rumors? How is this, to quote another commenter, "poisoning the well"? In cultural studies, admitting this sort of "information" into the discusssion is so par for the course as to be scarcely worth a flutter. Again, I think you are misrepresenting me, even stridently so. But whatever satisfies your sense of justice, you know.

And I thought I was a kind of self-serious guy! I've met some of my matches here!

[Grace]

Hmm, I'm a big believer in 'reading against the grain' and think that documents should be studied within their context and not taken at face value, so I guess I could be said to have a 'post-modern' approach to history. However, the post-modern approach becomes problematic if it is taken to imply that there is no fact or fiction, but that in fact everything is of equal value – i.e. historical research becomes completely useless. Always doubting everything is healthy in a historian, but that does not mean that all documents lie. The post-modern approach that Monsieur Foucault and others advocate(d) does not mean this – it means being aware of the things you listed, e.g. that documents have often been manipulated and that knowledge and power go hand in hand. This means that when we want to study why person X died, we should carefully analyse and interrogate the sources we have – it does not mean that no cause of death can be established, or that official documents necessarily lie. This is what Ince's and Murnau's historians have done, and they have determined that X is the most probable cause of death. Anger's book is based on stories he came up with in his head, like you said – he did not write his book by going back to sources and carefully analysing and interrogating them. Therefore seeing his book as anything but a reflection of 1960s myths about the gilded age of Hollywood is very questionable; comparing Anger and say, Brian Taves' book about Ince is therefore absurd and definitely "a little out of step with developments in contemporary academic history and philosophy."

" my list CANNOT be a list of "actual" causes of death, but can be a list of what are commonly reported, in popular reference sources and elsewhere, as the causes of death. In disputed cases, that sometimes does include rumors."

I think this is a good example of taking the post-modern approach a bit too far. Of course we can get all metaphysical and say that we can never be sure of anything, fair enough, but then if we take this approach, what's the point of this thread? Surely listing different possible deaths implies that one of them must have been the real cause of death? Or even, if none of them is the cause of death – one thing we can be sure of is that there was a person X, and that person X died. Hence there must be a cause of death. And if historical researchers with sound knowledge of the different historiographical approaches (including the post-modern) and a healthy sense of skepticism about all sources have determined that based on the material we have, the most likely reason for person X's death was X and there are no documents (fairytales written 40 years later aren't reliable documents) to contradict this, then I don't see how that is debatable just because there are rumours flying around (unless of course those rumours reveal 'blind spots' in the historical research)? You listed some deaths as disputed, which scholarship, following Foucault, doesn't find disputed – hence what you've said is very controversial and I don't think you can say it's just because you have a post-modern approach to history.

I guess what I am trying to say with this long-winded text is that while I agree with you that documents are often 'unstable', the things you have said are just rumours. You have not actually criticized the historical research that historians have done – you've just believed the rumours because in theory they could be true. Yet it doesn't really make sense that you would mention these rumours as serious if you haven't actually gone and read the 'proper' historical research on the subject. There would be no problem if you had, say, studied the Ince case in depth by reading all the important Hearst/Ince books and articles and then looked at whether the rumours reveal 'blind spots' and then declared their cause of death as disputed – but it looks like you just give space for rumours because they are there, and that you 'prioritize' rumours. I think we've understood Foucault very differently.

"Disputed" as terminology in my list means that the cause of death HAS been disputed (and almost inevitably therefore still is). The word is used only eight times, and in only a couple of those cases is it likely that anyone would take exception - Ince, Psilander (as I have discovered). As far as I know, tell me otherwise if I'm wrong, the debates concerning Robert Harron, Thelma Todd, Olive Thomas, and Mary Nolan are not settled, and probably no one is even much concerned about Jeanette Loff or Patterson Dial. The word "disputed" does not come up in the Murnau entry at all; there is no questionable information there. I never included the Anger rumors in the entry itself because I knew they were unsubstantiated; as I have repeatedly said, I only mentioned that information as an aside in a post.

So I've got to say that you are severely overstating the prevalence of the issue that bothers you in the list itself, and therefore substantially misrepresenting what I have been doing. I actually re-wrote MANY of the lines in the list to reflect the information that people have added here - even people whom I have already figured out that I dislike. I revised the Ince entry. I'm not inflexible.

It's a pastime - you're talking as if it's a serious scholarly project intended for publication, on which I should lavish weeks of research to get the "facts" as close to the standard you suggest as I possibly could. But it's not that. I never claimed it was that. I think I have been quite clear about what I did claim. You may think I am taking post-modernism too far, but it's my project for my amusement, and that of anyone else here who may also find it amusing.

I never equated Taves and Anger. Never even referred to them in the same breath. You are extrapolating unfairly there. I never cited Anger in the list itself. I mentioned him (a great film-maker, by the way) in passing merely, and got slammed into the next state. Is there some homophobia operating here? Hollywood Babylon is a key queer studies text, after all.

I don't agree with your reading of Foucault. I believe that he would flatly deny, not the existence of "facts" per se, but the notion that there can ever be any such thing as an impartial history objectively based upon facts. A lot of philosophers would deny that. A fair number of contemporary historians would, too. To repeat myself again, the idea that anything much is ever really "settled" in history strikes me as a nice fantasy. Even if you could get all the facts "straight," which you can't, history doesn't end with facts, it barely begins with them. And there will never be general agreement about interpretations of history.

1.) But then, for example in Ince's case you still maintain that his death is disputed when no academic historian seems to think so these days. I cannot comment for the other disputable deaths – perhaps they really are so. But if, following your reading of post-modernism, we cannot establish a person's cause of death through historical research – shouldn't all the deaths in your list be 'disputed'?
2.) Why bring up rumours if you agree that they're pretty certain to be untrue? Or if you haven't actually read other things than the rumours and hence have nothing to compare them with? Why be surprised when people react in a negative way in this case? Isn't it expected that people would contradict you?
3.) I'm not even going to reply to your rather offending and completely off-topic claim that my disagreement with your citing of Anger is founded on homophobia. That is really low.
4.)" there can ever be any such thing as an impartial history objectively based upon facts." I don't think I've said that there is never any basis for doubt or that we should worship 'historical facts', which I think you imply. I've said that there's a difference between probability after careful analysis of available material, and baseless rumours people have come up with to sell books. I do believe there are certain facts: I do believe that human beings die. Hence there is a cause of death. Through analysis and discussion of the materials that are available to us, we can establish that some causes of death seem MORE PROBABLE and some LESS PROBABLE according to the materials that we have. Of course this does not mean that our documents can show us 100% surely the biological reasons which led to someone dying, of course we should also take into account that we might not have all the sources available and that we might fundamentally misunderstand some things or are not even asking the right questions – but we can make an educated guess with this in mind. And with new research, it might happen that completely new interpretations take place. This is what I believe makes historical research possible. Correct me if I've misunderstood you, but to me this is something you disagree with. Everything is the same for you, and I follow your thinking, there is actually very little point to historical research.
5.) I don't think anyone is pretending this to be a serious academic discussion – but not everybody enjoys discussing rumours that have been proved to be just lies, or conspiracy theories. If this was what you wanted to do, had you been wise you would have stated it in the opening message. Hence the backlash.

[Grace]

Grace wrote in her revised post:

"... it looks like you just give space for rumours because they are there, and that you 'prioritize' rumours. I think we've understood Foucault very differently because I don't think this is what he meant at all."

If a rumor had never had any currency, it would be of little or no historical interest. The only places in the list where "rumors" are truly in play are Ince and Psilander. I mentioned Murnau rumors outside the list itself. The other cases of disputes are, as far as I know, actual and active disputes. How is this "prioritizing" rumors? How is this, to quote another commenter, "poisoning the well"? In cultural studies, admitting this sort of "information" into the discusssion is so par for the course as to be scarcely worth a flutter. Again, I think you are misrepresenting me, even stridently so. But whatever satisfies your sense of justice, you know.

And I thought I was a kind of self-serious guy! I've met some of my matches here!

As I have already said, if you wished this to be a more general discussion not only of the established causes of death but also of the Hollywood lore about celebrity deaths (I think this kind of modern mythology is very interesting), then you should perhaps have stated so earlier. You cannot expect people here to all be scholars in cultural studies. You are prioritizing rumours if you still claim that Ince's death is disputed, without being able to offer specifics. Scholars have debunked pretty much all parts of the Ince murder story – hence why 'disputed'? Do you have new information?

[Wisconsin Mark]

1.) But then, for example in Ince's case you still maintain that his death is disputed when no academic historian seems to think so these days. I cannot comment for the other disputable deaths – perhaps they really are so. But if, following your reading of post-modernism, we cannot establish a person's cause of death through historical research – shouldn't all the deaths in your list be 'disputed'?
2.) Why bring up rumours if you agree that they're pretty certain to be untrue? Or if you haven't actually read other things than the rumours and hence have nothing to compare them with? Why be surprised when people react in a negative way in this case? Isn't it expected that people would contradict you?
3.) I'm not even going to reply to your rather offending and completely off-topic claim that my disagreement with your citing of Anger is founded on homophobia. That is really low.
4.)" there can ever be any such thing as an impartial history objectively based upon facts." I don't think I've said that there is never any basis for doubt or that we should worship 'historical facts', which I think you imply. I've said that there's a difference between probability after careful analysis of available material, and baseless rumours people have come up with to sell books. I do believe there are certain facts: I do believe that human beings die. Hence there is a cause of death. Through analysis and discussion of the materials that are available to us, we can establish that some causes of death seem MORE PROBABLE and some LESS PROBABLE according to the materials that we have. Of course this does not mean that our documents can show us 100% surely the biological reasons which led to someone dying, of course we should also take into account that we might not have all the sources available and that we might fundamentally misunderstand some things or are not even asking the right questions – but we can make an educated guess with this in mind. And with new research, it might happen that completely new interpretations take place. This is what I believe makes historical research possible. Correct me if I've misunderstood you, but to me this is something you disagree with. Everything is the same for you, and I follow your thinking, there is actually very little point to historical research.
5.) I don't think anyone is pretending this to be a serious academic discussion – but not everybody enjoys discussing rumours that have been proved to be just lies, or conspiracy theories. If this was what you wanted to do, had you been wise you would have stated it in the opening message. Hence the backlash.

You are simply being obtuse on purpose now, so I'm done responding to that.

Apologies for all caps: NO ONE IS FORCING ANYONE TO READ THE THREAD OR RESPOND IN IT. I've been quite clear about what I'm doing, and what I think about what I'm doing, and so on. More clear than that, I cannot be. If you don't like it, spend your time elsewhere.

If certain people who've gotten their undies in a bundle over what someone else accurately described as "a harmless piece of trivia" are representative of what goes on here, I'll be catching the next train out of town, thanks.

It's a goofy little list! It's a doodle! I've been amusing myself with it until the new semester starts and my real work begins! Maybe the rumors are fun to include! What's the harm in it? What is there about all this that is so hard to understand? I swear, the religious seriousness of some of you is suffocating. Get a life and all.

Fans of opera, or silent film, or modern dance, or art cinema, or contemporary poetry, or philosophy, or [FILL IN THE BLANK], sometimes wonder why more people don't gravitate to these worthy enthusiasms. Well maybe when they check it out, they discover that a lot of the acolytes of these forms are plain daft, and they hightail it back to football and sitcoms.

[Donald Binks]

Before I ask the seconds to leave the ring and everyone to once again leave their corners, could I just add my two cents worth here?

Firstly, this fellow has said - quite a few times - that he has prepared this list as a bit of fun, an erstwhile titbit of trivia. He is not writing a thesis in preparation for being awarded a Doctorate in Philosophy; neither is he embarking on a lecture tour of the United States on this subject. He is also new to Nitrateville and should be welcomed as a new contributor instead of being lambasted with posts, which to my mind, wander off into a lofty banter equivalent to a QC presenting evidence before a Royal Commission.

Please try and be a trifle more accommodating and not send people off scurrying for cover. Common sense should win the day here.

I thank you.

[Wisconsin Mark]

Before I ask the seconds to leave the ring and everyone to once again leave their corners, could I just add my two cents worth here?

Firstly, this fellow has said - quite a few times - that he has prepared this list as a bit of fun, an erstwhile titbit of trivia. He is not writing a thesis in preparation for being awarded a Doctorate in Philosophy; neither is he embarking on a lecture tour of the United States on this subject. He is also new to Nitrateville and should be welcomed as a new contributor instead of being lambasted with posts, which to my mind, wander off into a lofty banter equivalent to a QC presenting evidence before a Royal Commission.

Please try and be a trifle more accommodating and not send people off scurrying for cover. Common sense should win the day here.

I thank you.

Thank you, Donald, thank you. I should very much like to continue to contribute here - but NOT if it involves constant self-justification, and NOT if it proves to be draining.

[George O'Brien]

Wisonsin Mike writes:

"Trashy gay websites" - none consulted, I was referring to Anger's very well-known book Hollywood Babylon. I'll pass over the touch of hostility that might be construed from the yoking of "trashy" and "gay".




I have read Hollywood Babylon and there is no mention that Garcia Stevenson was a 14 year old boy - something you state as a fact. You are careful to dress your other falsehoods in an airy, spurious "Some say" ,"Who knows?" offhandedness. This kind of stuff may be common ways of dialogue in the "graves" of academe, but it isn't acceptable in the real world.

There was no hostility in referring to "trashy gay websites". They exist, as do trashy straight websites. and many false, irresponsible things are posted about people who cannot defend themselves. And isn't it clever to declare that you are passing over commenting on something that you are, in actuality, making a comment on.

[Wisconsin Mark]

I have read Hollywood Babylon and there is no mention that Garcia Stevenson was a 14 year old boy - something you state as a fact. You are careful to dress your other falsehoods in an airy, spurious "Some say" ,"Who knows?" offhandedness. This kind of stuff may be common ways of dialogue in the "graves" of academe, but it isn't acceptable in the real world.

There was no hostility in referring to "trashy gay websites". They exist, as do trashy straight websites. and many false, irresponsible things are posted about people who cannot defend themselves. And isn't it clever to declare that you are passing over commenting on something that you are, in actuality, making a comment on.

Wikipedia (your basic "trashy gay website") entry on Murnau:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._W._Murnau

"A week prior to the opening of the film Tabu, Murnau drove up the coast from Los Angeles, California in a hired Rolls Royce. The young driver, a 14-year-old Philippine servant,[7] crashed the car against an electric pole. Murnau hit his head and died in a hospital the next day, in nearby Santa Barbara,[1][8] before the premiere of his last film."

Two more points. One, you need to untighten your corset. Two, cough, cough, this website may be many things, but it ain't the real world.

[kaleidoscopeworld]

they hightail it back to football and sitcoms.

Aw, but it's the world cup this year!

Anyway, Mark, I tend to agree with you re: Foucauldian/post-modern approaches to making history. I hope you'll stick around NV.

[Zool]

I should very much like to continue to contribute here - but NOT if it involves constant self-justification, and NOT if it proves to be draining.

Apparently this exchange isn't draining enough for you, since you keep responding endlessly.

Wikipedia (your basic "trashy gay website") entry on Murnau:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._W._Murnau

"A week prior to the opening of the film Tabu, Murnau drove up the coast from Los Angeles, California in a hired Rolls Royce. The young driver, a 14-year-old Philippine servant,[7] crashed the car against an electric pole. Murnau hit his head and died in a hospital the next day, in nearby Santa Barbara,[1][8] before the premiere of his last film."

You did not reference Wikipedia when you initially stated the information that Murnau's driver was a 14 year old boy. You said you got it from Kenneth Anger's book, so stick with that.

On the subject though, as you are a professor of humanities, you should be smart enough to know that Wikipedia is not considered an accurate source of information when doing research, as ANYBODY can edit any page to their hearts content. You are referencing it now because, I don't know why. If in your mind Wikipedia can be twisted into a "trashy gay" website, have at it.

You should never regurgitate your research before analyzing it for whatever factual value it may have. Anyone can read anything and pass it along using the excuse of "hey, it's out there. I'm just telling you what they said." but if you do that, you have the potential to lose credibility. You should never cite homoerotic smut as fact just because it's "there" (Murnau being driven by a 14 year old kid, and possibly having oral sex with him at the time of the accident, both of which were mentioned by you in other posts, falls into the category of homoerotic smut).

You don't know when to quit. You don't know when you've been humbled and you don't know when to shut it, so you can have the last word here.

[Mike Gebert]

Okay, can we all just dial this back about four notches?

Yes, the legend is part of the story, and though I wouldn't believe the ISBN number in Hollywood Babylon without a second source, it is part of the mythology of Hollywood by now. I don't know if that's more Foucault or Adela Rogers St. John, but it's a point of view.

But there are people here who go to primary sources to scrape the BS away from stories much encrusted with it by decades of pop movie books and magazines, so I understand if they don't exactly agree with the premise that Wikipedia and a legal document are as good as the other, or rather, that the latter is as likely to be false as the other. (And yes, they are often identified here one way or another, not least because they've met others here in person.)

So the righteousness on both sides needs to chill a bit. You can have your loose definition of fact in your list, but others can also refuse to buy into that when things have actual evidence that can be evaluated. I've tried to read back to see where this discussion went haywire, but I can't seem to stick with it to determine that. So let's just all take it easy, okay? It's not life or death. Well, at least not at this point for the subjects at hand.

[bobfells]

Nicely said, Michael. I too am backtracking to find where and how the exchanges got heated. One point worth making perhaps: Our new member WI Mark may not have seen the work of many of the individuals in his necrology list. But many of us have and in a sense we are invested in the celluloid friendships that film seems to create - perhaps a greater illusion than the illusion of motion itself. As Mary Pickford once said to Doug Fairbanks when he was annoyed by total strangers approaching him like he was an old friend: "They've seen all your pictures and they feel as though they know you personally." I think some of that effect is showing itself in this discussion.

Life dealt many of these people we've named a bad hand or they lost control over their lives. And when you find yourself invested in their virtual presence to the extent of detecting a certain personality, it raise hackle to hear that person maligned by baseless smears made to make a few bucks. Academic theories aside, perhaps we just need to say to Mark, and also to remind ourselves, hey, careful what you say about these people - a lot of them are our friends.

[Changsham]

IF Mr R M Roberts was still around things would never have gotten out of hand.

[Wisconsin Mark]

Nicely said, Michael. I too am backtracking to find where and how the exchanges got heated. One point worth making perhaps: Our new member WI Mark may not have seen the work of many of the individuals in his necrology list. But many of us have and in a sense we are invested in the celluloid friendships that film seems to create - perhaps a greater illusion than the illusion of motion itself. As Mary Pickford once said to Doug Fairbanks when he was annoyed by total strangers approaching him like he was an old friend: "They've seen all your pictures and they feel as though they know you personally." I think some of that effect is showing itself in this discussion.

Life dealt many of these people we've named a bad hand or they lost control over their lives. And when you find yourself invested in their virtual presence to the extent of detecting a certain personality, it raise hackle to hear that person maligned by baseless smears made to make a few bucks. Academic theories aside, perhaps we just need to say to Mark, and also to remind ourselves, hey, careful what you say about these people - a lot of them are our friends.

The emotional issues in play here are all too apparent.

I have seen and appreciated the work of many of the individuals on the necrology list. I wouldn't bother posting at a silent film website if I didn't like silent film. I like many things, and perhaps I have learned not to overly invest in them.

Although I have to take that back - I'm overly invested in my two cats! Not going to give that up. The shades of Ince and Murnau, on the other hand, can fend for themselves. Surely it's their films that really matter anyway? Even if the most scurrilous rumors about Murnau were true, it wouldn't make Sunrise one bit less a great film.

Kenneth Anger, too, is a great film-maker and provocateur, and Hollywood Babylon is one of his most enduring and successful provocations. I heretically insist the at the existence of the book is a great thing for classic film, because it creates an interest. When Brian Taves does so much, give me a call.

[Wisconsin Mark]

I should very much like to continue to contribute here - but NOT if it involves constant self-justification, and NOT if it proves to be draining.

Apparently this exchange isn't draining enough for you, since you keep responding endlessly.

Wikipedia (your basic "trashy gay website") entry on Murnau:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._W._Murnau

"A week prior to the opening of the film Tabu, Murnau drove up the coast from Los Angeles, California in a hired Rolls Royce. The young driver, a 14-year-old Philippine servant,[7] crashed the car against an electric pole. Murnau hit his head and died in a hospital the next day, in nearby Santa Barbara,[1][8] before the premiere of his last film."

You did not reference Wikipedia when you initially stated the information that Murnau's driver was a 14 year old boy. You said you got it from Kenneth Anger's book, so stick with that.

On the subject though, as you are a professor of humanities, you should be smart enough to know that Wikipedia is not considered an accurate source of information when doing research, as ANYBODY can edit any page to their hearts content. You are referencing it now because, I don't know why. If in your mind Wikipedia can be twisted into a "trashy gay" website, have at it.

You should never regurgitate your research before analyzing it for whatever factual value it may have. Anyone can read anything and pass it along using the excuse of "hey, it's out there. I'm just telling you what they said." but if you do that, you have the potential to lose credibility. You should never cite homoerotic smut as fact just because it's "there" (Murnau being driven by a 14 year old kid, and possibly having oral sex with him at the time of the accident, both of which were mentioned by you in other posts, falls into the category of homoerotic smut).

You don't know when to quit. You don't know when you've been humbled and you don't know when to shut it, so you can have the last word here.

Not humbled at all. You must think I'm made of pretty flimsy stuff.

The growing "villagers with pitchforks" ambiance to the discussion is rather amusing (especially after a good night's sleep).

Some thoughts, not that I expect any of you to ratify these.

From a certain standpoint in philosophy, there are no facts, only the reception of "facts." You are free to dislike that standpoint, but it does exist, and elements of it have a very long history. Plato and Descartes were notoriously skeptical about empirical evidence, George Berkeley denied that there was any physical reality, Kant denied that we could know actual objects, Hume denied the validity of induction, etc.

I take it that most of you are empiricists and foundationalists - kudos to "Harold Aherne" for spotting this issue. It is certainly your right to be so, but don't take it that these issues are at all settled in philosophy, because they simply are not. Everything is still open. As I told Mr. Aherne, I don't consider myself an extreme anti-foundationalist (or anti-empiricist either), but I can certainly play one for the purposes of this argument. (Old high school debaters never die.) Foundationalism took some pretty extreme hits during the 20th Century - from Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Kurt Godel, and others - and is bloodied on the sidelines right now. Empiricism is still on the field, and may seem to control the game because it is the "common sense" viewpoint - but the opposition to empiricism is tenacious, no matter what some scientists unversed in philosophy may think.

In my view, historical researchers should research because they like research and are interested in what they find, not in some vain hope of cleaning up or improving the historical record. (I can't believe I'm channeling Stanley Fish here, but there it is.) Additional information seldom clarifies the record; rather, it provides more occasions for dispute.

Now, Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the world's most used information source, and a one-stop for most people. Its "error rate" is high, but no higher than that of more august information sources such as the Encyclopedia Brittanica (this issue has been pretty extensively studied). Wikipedia is not THAT easy to edit or alter, as you will find out if you try.

What people get from Wikipedia are, therefore, the "facts" as far as they are concerned. That's basic reception theory. Thus, whatever it says at Wikipedia is extraordinarily powerful information. If Wikipedia says that Murnau's chauffeur was 14 years old, that is in a very important sense a "fact" until Wikipedia does not say it anymore.

Or take Ince. The Wikipedia article on Ince contains a lengthy section entitled "Murder or natural death debate." Brian Taves is not so much as mentioned in that section. You know what? That means there is still a debate. It does not matter whether Taves has been persuasive in the bubble of the academy or the bubble of NitrateVille. His interpretation has no wider currency yet. When his take on Ince's death has won the Darwinian struggle for information dominance, and any mention of a rumored Ince murder is a vague and distant, obliterated memory that is not so much mentioned at Wikipedia, then we can say there is no dispute. Not until.

I know that I'm probably driving some of you mad with fury. But in cultural studies, and in certain parts of the historical and philosophical fraternities, what I'm saying would be considered mundane.

All this said, and re-iterating that the necrology list is nothing more than a pastime, I did in fact try to be scrupulous about including "facts" and identifying questionable information as questionable. It's a nice sand-castle. But I'm under no illusions as to the shifting nature of the sands or the ocean waves that may rush in and sweep it all away. Newtonian science looked pretty solid until Einstein came along.

[missdupont]

The things you quote like Wikipedia just show there's a debate among ignorant people on subjects, there is not a debate among learned people who read and research as to what the real facts are.

[Wisconsin Mark]

The things you quote like Wikipedia just show there's a debate among ignorant people on subjects, there is not a debate among learned people who read and research as to what the real facts are.

Hey, I think I'm special too, and in certain contexts I absolutely do discount the opinions of the uninformed. But in cultural studies, ma'am, "learned" people do not count more than "ignorant" people.

Besides which, pretty much all of you use Wikipedia, and you know that you do. How many bits of information were added to this thread citing the appropriate Wikipedia ands IMDB entries? Dozens. (The IMDB can also be edited by users, you know; there is an approval process for the edits at both websites.)

Uppitiness about Wikipedia among people who use Wikipedia (but might deny doing so if you asked them) is so prevalent as to practically be a syndrome, worthy in itself of study.

[sepiatone]

Golly gee!, what happened to this thread? it was great fun and informative. It's starting to look like a complex dime novel now. Let's get back to some names.

[missdupont]

Cultural studies and empiricism don't mean a pile of beans in the world, it's just another way to differentiate yourself from everyone else and say we're a special breed. It's just like the license for the plumbers or union members, to say only people with this paperwork can work in the field. It doesn't mean anything except to those who live in their little fantasy world, that's why I stopped after my master's.

[Wisconsin Mark]

Golly gee!, what happened to this thread? it was great fun and informative. It's starting to look like a complex dime novel now. Let's get back to some names.

I thought it was fun, too. I'm a frustrated new user of the site who won't take attacks lying down.

What I think happens in MANY discussion groups on many subjects is that there are self-appointed "guardians" who carefully scan especially posts by new users in order to spot "heresies," and then send in their equivalent of the Inquisition. Whether or not they admit it to themselves, they WANT to drive away people who won't accept the site orthodoxy, whatever it happens to be. Heaven forbid a new voice should appear that not only doesn't know what that orthodoxy is, but doesn't particularly care. There will be hell to pay then!

NitrateVille is not unique in this. Quite the opposite.

I suspect that a number of passive observers of the thread are finding entertainment value in the squabbling. I wouldn't want to disappoint them!

[Wisconsin Mark]

Cultural studies and empiricism don't mean a pile of beans in the world, it's just another way to differentiate yourself from everyone else and say we're a special breed. It's just like the license for the plumbers or union members, to say only people with this paperwork can work in the field. It doesn't mean anything except to those who live in their little fantasy world, that's why I stopped after my master's.

That's ridiculous, frankly. Anyone can educate themselves about these concepts. The concept of empiricism (and its contrary of rationalism) has been around for centuries, and should be part of basic American high school education, as it is here in Mexico and in the rest of the educated world.

Going for the straw man argument, again. Seems to be popular.

[Mike Gebert]

Okay, one of NitrateVille's rules is that you can say the same damn thing twice but not three times. I think we've gotten enough on the philosophical underpinnings and who is or is not copacetic with what approach, let's get back to the fun subject of people's deaths or I'll close this down as having run its course for any actual silent and classic film value.

[didi-5]

Romaine Fielding is too old to be in this list but he died of a tooth absess or something equally mundane, all the more unfortunate as he had been a quack doctor amongst other things. Allegedly.