Poisonous Biographies

drednm · Post by **drednm** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 5:09 am

Who is Marion Meade?

FrankFay · Post by **FrankFay** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:09 am

Author of Buster Keaton: cut to the chase (1995)

drednm · Post by **drednm** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:15 am

oh thanks.....

bobfells · Post by **bobfells** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:13 am

Harold Aherne wrote:
bobfells wrote:If you like Jeanette MacDonald and/or Nelson Eddy, avoid the Sharon Rich bio, SWEETHEARTS.
The question of "did they or didn't they?" is a huge bone of contention in MacDonald-Eddy fan circles and how well one likes the Edward Baron Turk or Sharon Rich biographies largely depends on who one believes regarding the rumours--negative Amazon reviews of either author's work usually center on how the controversy is handled.

Still, Sharon Rich has provided interesting (if somewhat circumstantial) evidence for her viewpoint. She's also published a volume of Jeanette's late 20s correspondence and a manuscript of her 1960 autobiography.

-Harold

The Rich MacEddy bio does a lot more than examine "did they/didn't they?" She draws a devastating portrait of each (the term "character assassination" comes to mind) and quotes liberally from Nelson Eddy's "letters" to his MOTHER about his sexual trysts with Mac. I understand there is doubt that such letters ever existed except in Rich's imagination. The book is extensively footnoted giving it the veneer of research but footnotes and sources can be made up. Remember the Hitler Diaries?

Nitratedreams · Post by **Nitratedreams** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:14 am

Though its not exactly a legit biography, I couldn't not add Darwin Porter's little masterpiece of a fantasy novel 'Hollywood's Silent Closet'. I own it myself and love it for the obvious piece of crap it truly is. I mean, come on. Where else are you going to find a phone book sized epic of gay silent-era fanfiction?? Porter's an unintentional genius.

Nitratedreams · Post by **Nitratedreams** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:22 am

Also, Joe Morella's 'The It Girl: The Incredible Story of Clara Bow'. Written more like a trashy pulp novel than a biography, complete with obviously made-up dialogue and all the regurgitated rumors including the football team gangbang. Read it and was simultaneously enraged and intrigued at its obvious crap-factor. Another brilliantly written fantasy novel; one I appreciate for being just that.

Frederica · Post by **Frederica** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:44 am

Nitratedreams wrote:Though its not exactly a legit biography, I couldn't not add Darwin Porter's little masterpiece of a fantasy novel 'Hollywood's Silent Closet'. I own it myself and love it for the obvious piece of crap it truly is. I mean, come on. Where else are you going to find a phone book sized epic of gay silent-era fanfiction?? Porter's an unintentional genius.

Is he unintentional?

antoniod · Post by **antoniod** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:34 am

Don't forget Bob Thomas' BUD AND LOU. Speaking of HARLOW, remember the Carol Baker biopic that ended with her dying of pnumonia instead of Kidney failure? The low-budget Carol Lynley version was more accurate. And didn't Shulman even realize that Kidney disease was not treatable in the 30s?(Re:blaming Harlow's mother for her death).

Jim Roots · Post by **Jim Roots** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:18 pm

Frederica wrote:
Nitratedreams wrote:Though its not exactly a legit biography, I couldn't not add Darwin Porter's little masterpiece of a fantasy novel 'Hollywood's Silent Closet'. I own it myself and love it for the obvious piece of crap it truly is. I mean, come on. Where else are you going to find a phone book sized epic of gay silent-era fanfiction?? Porter's an unintentional genius.
Is he unintentional?

Yes, much like the BP oil spill.

Jim

drednm · Post by **drednm** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:35 pm

I have this Porter opus also, but after reading his Bogart "biography," I never looked back.

Frederica · Post by **Frederica** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 1:11 pm

Jim Roots wrote:
Frederica wrote:
Nitratedreams wrote:Though its not exactly a legit biography, I couldn't not add Darwin Porter's little masterpiece of a fantasy novel 'Hollywood's Silent Closet'. I own it myself and love it for the obvious piece of crap it truly is. I mean, come on. Where else are you going to find a phone book sized epic of gay silent-era fanfiction?? Porter's an unintentional genius.
Is he unintentional?
Yes, much like the BP oil spill.

Jim

I've only read a paragraph or two here and there, so my question was an honest one. I caught no irony in those paragraphs and tagged the book the same way as did Nitratedreams, as silent era gay star...er...boinker... fanfic. But who knows, I might have self-selected the irony-free bits.

Nitratedreams · Post by **Nitratedreams** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:42 pm

Jim Roots wrote:
Frederica wrote:
Nitratedreams wrote:Though its not exactly a legit biography, I couldn't not add Darwin Porter's little masterpiece of a fantasy novel 'Hollywood's Silent Closet'. I own it myself and love it for the obvious piece of crap it truly is. I mean, come on. Where else are you going to find a phone book sized epic of gay silent-era fanfiction?? Porter's an unintentional genius.
Is he unintentional?
Yes, much like the BP oil spill.

Jim

I lol'd.

Brooksie · Post by **Brooksie** » Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:29 am

antoniod wrote:Don't forget Bob Thomas' BUD AND LOU. Speaking of HARLOW, remember the Carol Baker biopic that ended with her dying of pnumonia instead of Kidney failure? The low-budget Carol Lynley version was more accurate. And didn't Shulman even realize that Kidney disease was not treatable in the 30s?(Re:blaming Harlow's mother for her death).

Apparently the Shulman book was the jumping-off point for both films.

Shulman did have Harlow dying of kidney disease but, in possibly the most outrageous aspect of the book, he attributes it to a wedding night smackup by Paul Bern, who is not only a sexually depraved drunk but, in Shulman's words a `murderer from the grave'. A total hatchet job.

moviepas · Post by **moviepas** » Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:27 am

I also liked the Swanson on Swanson(a big book, I think) and often recommended this as a good read. I read a Valentino in early 1971 when I was worked for short time in London for Decca Records which I got from the local library a few doors from work. Another big book but I enjoyed it. An early Bing book was Call Me Lucky which was ghost written in the early 1950s. The cloth edition had the pix inside both ends of the cover. Hollow Man was ghastly. I am a member of the local Bing society but I can't get to their bi-monthly meetings. I read the MacD & Nelson book and it was too much to say the least. I used to belong to the US society(Jeanette) and they put out lovely magazines with some nice stills.

I read a recent one on Doris Day from the local free library and boy besides the errors of film fact and literals there were too many unbelievable facts bordering on foul language and sex. Reminds me of the Hedy Lamarr book she wanted withdrawn. The lady who took me around one Sunday in the mid-1970s to see where all the studios were(she was Australian) had dealings with Lamarr at the actors' union pension area and belonged to the MacD society & showed me Nelson's one time apartment block.

I read a lot but so many of these things are just too unbelievable & contradict the next book on the same subject. Even articles I read in a well-known collectors' magazine of long standing have so many errors. But they do have an author who reviews books and she really gives some of these current authors more than a piece of her mind. Having done that these authors still get more books published from the same publishers. Beats me. McFarland for all their high prices publish many of these books that have been reviewed to shreds. I assume the editors have little idea of the industry of old and don't know a fact from fiction and don't bother to check anything. Not good enough.

Mention of Dr John McCabe reminds me that he was always jealous & critical of anyone who wrote a book on Olllie & Stanley. He married Rosina Lawrence(Way Out West) late in their lives after meeting her at a Sons of the Desert tent meeting. He outlived her.

rollot24 · Post by **rollot24** » Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:06 am

westegg wrote:Off topic, but among the best show biz memoirs I've read were SWANSON BY SWANSON (by Swanson!)

Thanks for mentioning this. I've had it on my shelf for years and never got to it until today.

I ditto the remarks on Schulman's Valentino "bio". I picked it up for $1.00, read it and couldn't get rid of it fast enough. I couldn't even bring myself to donate it to the library, I literally tossed it in the trash.

drednm · Post by **drednm** » Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:55 am

The Swanson auto is one of the best....

rudyfan · Post by **rudyfan** » Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:01 am

rollot24 wrote: I ditto the remarks on Schulman's Valentino "bio". I picked it up for $1.00, read it and couldn't get rid of it fast enough. I couldn't even bring myself to donate it to the library, I literally tossed it in the trash.

Okay, gotta chime in here to defend Shulman's book a little bit. While I find the focus on the first third of the book on the nightmare of Valentino's sensational funeral to be overkill and sensationalistic, it's pretty accurate. For what it's worth, that is a compelling tale to tell. Shulman wrote about it in a lurid fashion.

The actual bio portion of the book is not a hatchet job as his book on Harlow was. Shulman's "tone" throughout the book is rather snide and unpleasant. I do not think he liked his subject and it shows.

The final third of the book that focuses on all the wing-nuttery is just that, wing-nuttery, but it's all pretty much factually correct as far as all the wingnuts are concerned.

All this being said, the most maddening thing about his book is the lack of sourcing for anything. No indexing and no footnotes, endnotes. Now that I am fairly familiar with a lot of the vintage print material on Valentino while I was working on my own book, Shulman did use a lot of vintage articles. I can now identify many direct quotes he used and match them to the source material I've collected.

It's not my favorite book on Valentino, it's also not nearly as bad as the reputation it has. Just my 2 cents, ymmv.

drednm · Post by **drednm** » Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:19 am

Donna.... which begs the question: Why on earth would anyone choose to write a biography of someone they dislike?

rudyfan · Post by **rudyfan** » Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:42 am

drednm wrote:Donna.... which begs the question: Why on earth would anyone choose to write a biography of someone they dislike?

Someone offered him money is my guess.

Frederica · Post by **Frederica** » Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:56 am

drednm wrote:Donna.... which begs the question: Why on earth would anyone choose to write a biography of someone they dislike?

In Shulman's case, it was probably money, he was quite the hot showbiz biographer for a while there. He's fallen off the radar now. But I don't think disliking someone precludes doing a good biography as long as you apply good historical practice. If anything, I'm more suspicious of the opposite pole, (see Chris Snowdon's comment on overly laudatory fan bios).

drednm · Post by **drednm** » Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:58 am

I guess a job's a job.... Well I couldn't spend the time unless I felt positively toward the subject matter.... then again, no one is asking me

rollot24 · Post by **rollot24** » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:09 am

Frederica wrote:But I don't think disliking someone precludes doing a good biography as long as you apply good historical practice.

I felt that about Affron's bio of Lillian Gish. To me, I got the impression that the more research he did, the less he liked her as a person.

rudyfan · Post by **rudyfan** » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:25 am

rollot24 wrote:
Frederica wrote:But I don't think disliking someone precludes doing a good biography as long as you apply good historical practice.
I felt that about Affron's bio of Lillian Gish. To me, I got the impression that the more research he did, the less he liked her as a person.

Ditto on this one. I really felt Affron did not like Lillian at all.

Frederica · Post by **Frederica** » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:30 am

rollot24 wrote:
Frederica wrote:But I don't think disliking someone precludes doing a good biography as long as you apply good historical practice.
I felt that about Affron's bio of Lillian Gish. To me, I got the impression that the more research he did, the less he liked her as a person.

Haven't read that one, but I got the same impression from Diana Serra Cary's bio of Jackie Coogan. Which does not mean she didn't do a good job on the biography, although it probably means she didn't enjoy the process very much.

Carl Rollyson has written several books on the historiography of biographies, they are theory/method focused, but eminently readable. They're worth reading if you read a lot of biographies.

drednm · Post by **drednm** » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:33 am

Maybe autobiographies treat their subject more fairly.....

Although didn't Gloria Swanson once famously deny she had ever made a film called Teddy at the Throttle ?

FrankFay · Post by **FrankFay** » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:39 am

I can't say I'm a Jackie Coogan scholar but he just doesn't give the impression of having been that likable.

rollot24 · Post by **rollot24** » Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:07 pm

Frederica wrote:
rollot24 wrote:
Frederica wrote:But I don't think disliking someone precludes doing a good biography as long as you apply good historical practice.
I felt that about Affron's bio of Lillian Gish. To me, I got the impression that the more research he did, the less he liked her as a person.
Haven't read that one, but I got the same impression from Diana Serra Cary's bio of Jackie Coogan.

I thought the Affron was very good. Throughout the book he always held his admiration for her acting very high indeed but the deeper he got into her personal life, particularly her politics, the less enamored he became.

At least that's my reading of it.

azjazzman · Post by **azjazzman** » Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:48 pm

Frederica wrote:
Haven't read that one, but I got the same impression from Diana Serra Cary's bio of Jackie Coogan. Which does not mean she didn't do a good job on the biography, although it probably means she didn't enjoy the process very much.

It would be near impossible to do a bio of Jackie Coogan without discussing what a jerk he was. The stories are legendary. I'm sure it is something she felt a strong obligation to complete...after all Coogan was the biggest child stat of them all, pre Shirley Temple.

Frederica · Post by **Frederica** » Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:00 pm

azjazzman wrote:
Frederica wrote:
Haven't read that one, but I got the same impression from Diana Serra Cary's bio of Jackie Coogan. Which does not mean she didn't do a good job on the biography, although it probably means she didn't enjoy the process very much.
It would be near impossible to do a bio of Jackie Coogan without discussing what a jerk he was. The stories are legendary. I'm sure it is something she felt a strong obligation to complete...after all Coogan was the biggest child stat of them all, pre Shirley Temple.

She doesn't actually state "what a jerk," but it does come across.

Post by **silentfilm** » Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:35 pm

rollot24 wrote:I thought the Affron was very good. Throughout the book he always held his admiration for her acting very high indeed but the deeper he got into her personal life, particularly her politics, the less enamored he became.

At least that's my reading of it.

I agree completely. But most people that live to be 90 get to be very conservative in their old age, so I don't see anything wrong with that. And should we not write biographies of D.W. Griffith, John Wayne, Adolphe Menjou, Frank Capra and Cecil B. DeMille because they were too conservative for us?

After reading Barry Paris' biography of Louise Brooks, I'm certain that I could never have been friends with her. But I still enjoyed the book!

Poisonous Biographies

Biographies

Re: Biographies

Poisonous Biographies