I would prefer the term "raconteurs" to "gossips," but, yes.Frederica wrote:Oh, I dunno. Yes, it's important to record the oral histories, don't get me wrong. But half the time it's the oral histories that have created and promulgated the myths. Those old movie people were a big bunch of gossips, not prone to letting a fact stand in the way of a good story, and too many of them seemed to know a lot of stuff they couldn't possibly have known.
A good example of this would be Judy Garland. She was trained to be an entertainer, so when someone pointed a microphone or a camera in her direction, she was ON.
Just go to youtube and you'll find dozens of talk show appearances Garland made in the 50s and 60s. And she, and many old timers (Davis, Orson, etc.) were staples of mid-century talk shows because they told good stories. They may not have been true, but they were entertaining. Anyone who wishes to research these people and the people and studios they talked about *should* pay attention to the stories, as the stories themselves, no matter how true or untrue they may be, ARE part of the narrative. Our jobs as researchers is to believe but verify and to frame these stories and legends properly.