Arbuckle Bios

Jim Roots · Post by **Jim Roots** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:31 am

Just read Stuart Oderman's bio of Roscoe, and dolorously report that it is another failure in the canon, though a fairly noble one.

It is incredible that nearly 80 years after the man's death we are still awaiting a satisfying biography of someone who was such a pivotal figure in American cinematic and social history.

I'm not even going to mention that wretched idiocy masquerading as a fictional autobiography -- you know the one I'm referring to. There have been, to my knowledge, only three full-fledged attempts at an Arbuckle bio.

I read David Yallop's The Day the Laughter Died more than 30 years ago. At that time, I thought it was a terrific book. Over the years, I've been made aware that it is a bucket of codswallop.

Andy Edmonds' Frame-Up! is rightly excoriated as a sensationalistic hatchet-job.

Lastly is the Oderman book. At least Stuart tried to present a more detailed and well-rounded bio than either Yallop or Edmonds did. Unfortunately, he made the mistake of relying almost entirely upon the verbal ramblings of Minta Arbuckle, who has been charitably described as unreliable, and uncharitably described as batshit crazy.

Oderman has more weaknesses than just an over-reliance on a notoriously unreliable (and blatantly biased) source. Like all other biographers, once the trials are over, he basically quits on Arbuckle's life and dismisses his final ten years in about ten pages. (OK, I'm exaggerating, but not by much!) He also misses plentiful opportunities to fill in gaps in the story: for example, how did Roscoe learn his incredible juggling skills? Who taught him? He was learning these skills in vaudeville at roughly the same time W.C. Fields was touring -- did they ever meet up, and did Fields ever teach him anything?

Oderman's book is padded out with whole chapters devoted to Chaplin, Sennett, Normand, and others. I don't really want those distractions from Roscoe's story. And if I must have them, then why isn't there more about Ford Sterling, whose position as kingpin comedian of the Sennett factory was usurped by Arbuckle even before Chaplin came along? Why isn't there more about Fred Mace and Mack Swain, both of them large men whose position as Sennett's "funny fat man" was taken over by Arbuckle?

There are still far too many holes in the Arbuckle story (I'd like a lot more on his parents, too, and didn't he have sisters whom he doted on? What about his nephew, Al St John? What were their attitudes towards one another off-camera?) Obviously we have lost all of the living witnesses, but given Minta's track record, that's probably not such a bad thing. Roscoe wasn't exactly a literary man, so there are probably no written records in his own files, but there has to be more primary sources of information in old files and in Kevin Brownlow's audio tapes.

Jim

Frederica · Post by **Frederica** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:30 am

Jim Roots wrote:There have been, to my knowledge, only three full-fledged attempts at an Arbuckle bio.

Robert Young's Bio-Bibliography is probably the most accurate biography of Arbuckle to date, but he too depended mainly on Minta Durfee's... umm..."remembrances." If you've read the others, you might as well read Young's, too, but you will probably find it disappointing. I'm afraid you'll have to wait for Paul Gierucki's book. Sorry.

There are still far too many holes in the Arbuckle story (I'd like a lot more on his parents, too, and didn't he have sisters whom he doted on?

He had a sister, Nora St. John, Al's mother. Not sure about the doting, but I think they were relatively close, given that she was quite a bit older than he was. Paul or David would know.

ymmv · Post by **ymmv** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 12:26 pm

I know I'm derailing the thread but I was wondering what movie to see when I want to see more of Fatty Arbuckle's juggling skills. I've seen a number of the movies he did with Buster Keaton. I was simply amazed by the first one I saw, The Butcher Boy, which has Fatty nonchalantly throwing about pieces of meat and knives and not missing once.

Jim Roots · Post by **Jim Roots** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 12:47 pm

ymmv wrote:I know I'm derailing the thread but I was wondering what movie to see when I want to see more of Fatty Arbuckle's juggling skills. I've seen a number of the movies he did with Buster Keaton. I was simply amazed by the first one I saw, The Butcher Boy, which has Fatty nonchalantly throwing about pieces of meat and knives and not missing once.

The Cook. Some truly amazing juggling goin' on in that kitchen.

Jim

Frederica · Post by **Frederica** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 12:52 pm

Jim Roots wrote:
ymmv wrote:I know I'm derailing the thread but I was wondering what movie to see when I want to see more of Fatty Arbuckle's juggling skills. I've seen a number of the movies he did with Buster Keaton. I was simply amazed by the first one I saw, The Butcher Boy, which has Fatty nonchalantly throwing about pieces of meat and knives and not missing once.
The Cook. Some truly amazing juggling goin' on in that kitchen.

Jim

Ditto. Some fine dancin', too.

Turpinutz · Post by **Turpinutz** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:55 pm

Not to take anything away from Arbuckle - as I too find him great - but those juggling bits and amazing tricks were often "camera magic" and may have taken Arbuckle several takes or all day (or more) to reach perfection.
Any wonder Keaton is so amazing, he had a terrific teacher & influence. Same can be said about the lesser fortunate Al St. John.

I'll buy Paul Gierucki's book too when it's ready.

SteveR

Paul E. Gierucki · Post by **Paul E. Gierucki** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:16 pm

This same frustration (and the discovery of Arbuckle's personal scrapbook, documents, letters and photo albums) lead me to start researching for this new book over 15 years ago. I have worked almost exclusively from primary sources, debunking the many myths, fallacies and misrepresentations which mar previous works. In short, this effort reveals the true life story of Roscoe Arbuckle. I expect to be finished later this year.

You might also be interested to know that CineMuseum is currently producing THE ARBUCKLE ANTHOLOGY. We are working with historians, film archives and private collectors around the world to create the definitive HD collection of Arbuckle's very best works. This is one of the largest, most elaborate collections I have ever had the pleasure to curate. Watch for more news later this summer.

Lokke Heiss · Post by **Lokke Heiss** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 8:31 pm

It is incredible that nearly 80 years after the man's death we are still awaiting a satisfying biography of someone who was such a pivotal figure in American cinematic and social history.

I've reading this thread, I've decided that Arbuckle is the "Scott of the Antarctic" of silent film.

My only question: who is Amundsen in this story?

missdupont · Post by **missdupont** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 11:15 pm

If you go by scandal, then probably William Desmond Taylor is his Amundsen, since both are remembered more for that than their careers. If you go by what happened to his career because of scandal, then maybe Mabel Normand or Mary Miles Minter. If you go by the struggle with his career because of problems with the industry, then maybe Erich von Stroheim. In certain ways, maybe even Buster Keaton too, because Buster had his problems with family and with MGM. At least von Stroheim and Keaton survived, like Amundsen did.

Penfold · Post by **Penfold** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 3:18 am

Lokke Heiss wrote:
It is incredible that nearly 80 years after the man's death we are still awaiting a satisfying biography of someone who was such a pivotal figure in American cinematic and social history.
I've reading this thread, I've decided that Arbuckle is the "Scott of the Antarctic" of silent film.

My only question: who is Amundsen in this story?

Depending what exactly you mean by the analogy - I assume that you mean that Amundsen achieved equally if not better, but is relatively overlooked compared to Scott - then perhaps Arbuckle is Amundsen....both Keaton and Chaplin learnt first hand from Arbuckle and yet (in the general public) who knows Arbuckle's films???

CoffeeDan · Post by **CoffeeDan** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 4:54 am

Penfold wrote:
Lokke Heiss wrote:
It is incredible that nearly 80 years after the man's death we are still awaiting a satisfying biography of someone who was such a pivotal figure in American cinematic and social history.
I've reading this thread, I've decided that Arbuckle is the "Scott of the Antarctic" of silent film.

My only question: who is Amundsen in this story?
Depending what exactly you mean by the analogy - I assume that you mean that Amundsen achieved equally if not better, but is relatively overlooked compared to Scott - then perhaps Arbuckle is Amundsen....both Keaton and Chaplin learnt first hand from Arbuckle and yet (in the general public) who knows Arbuckle's films???

I've heard of polar opposites, but this is ridiculous . . .

Frederica · Post by **Frederica** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 9:49 am

Jim Roots wrote: Lastly is the Oderman book. At least Stuart tried to present a more detailed and well-rounded bio than either Yallop or Edmonds did. Unfortunately, he made the mistake of relying almost entirely upon the verbal ramblings of Minta Arbuckle, who has been charitably described as unreliable, and uncharitably described as batshit crazy.

One thing about the Oderman bio is that Minta's mile-wide passive aggressive streak is well and truly on display. She prefaces every statement with "I'm soooo loyal to Roscoe!" but the person she describes is not particularly admirable and she never misses a chance to infantilize him. Oh, and by the way, when you grasp the gigantic-capitalized-block-letter-exclamation-pointed subtext of her statements, you realize that underneath it all, she really thought Arbuckle was guilty.

My personal favorite of Minta's statements is this one, which is from the 12/24/1921 Movie Weekly (Bruce Long has it up at Taylorology). It is an interesting statement altogether, but this really leaps out and bites:

"I first heard of his trouble when I walked into a hotel parlor and saw
a newspaper with the name "Arbuckle" in great headlines. It was a terrible shock. My first thought was that he had been killed in some motion picture stunt. Then the fear came that perhaps there had been an automobile accident--perhaps he had killed someone with his car, but I knew that he is such a splendid driver that that could hardly have happened."

Well played, Minta! She manages to imply in a public statement (and in a public statement vetted by Arbuckle's lawyers, no less) that Arbuckle is a dangerous driver, but...oh no! No, no, no! No, he's a splendid driver! I'm so loyal!

I keep tellin' ya, peeps. There's a reason Arbuckle put a continent between the two of them.

Jim Roots · Post by **Jim Roots** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 11:16 am

Frederica wrote: One thing about the Oderman bio is that Minta's mile-wide passive aggressive streak is well and truly on display. She prefaces every statement with "I'm soooo loyal to Roscoe!" but the person she describes is not particularly admirable and she never misses a chance to infantilize him. Oh, and by the way, when you grasp the gigantic-capitalized-block-letter-exclamation-pointed subtext of her statements, you realize that underneath it all, she really thought Arbuckle was guilty.

You got that right. And talk about passive-aggressive -- she keeps telling us Arbuckle would stare at her and blurt out, "You think I'm guilty, don't you?" and she keeps telling Oderman that she wouldn't respond by asking him, "Well, are you?" Claims she believed it was up to him to raise the question ... as if she hadn't just told us that he did exactly that!

Jim

Frederica · Post by **Frederica** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 12:31 pm

Jim Roots wrote: You got that right. And talk about passive-aggressive -- she keeps telling us Arbuckle would stare at her and blurt out, "You think I'm guilty, don't you?" and she keeps telling Oderman that she wouldn't respond by asking him, "Well, are you?" Claims she believed it was up to him to raise the question ... as if she hadn't just told us that he did exactly that!

Jim

Yet according to Minta, she was an integral part of Arbuckle's defense team, dispensing wise legal counsel to his phalanx of extremely high-falutin' lawyers and even doing a little detecting work on the side. She was as inside as insiders get--but she still really thought he was guilty. Sort of makes you wonder what she was hearing in those legal caucuses.

In my less gracious moods, it makes me want to sell freeways to people. Cheap.

Jim Roots · Post by **Jim Roots** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 8:26 am

One point in the trials that continues to baffle me ... okay, one point among many ... The prosecution refused to put its key witness on the stand because they knew she was a bigamist and her testimony would be immediately ruled inadmissible.

Question #1: Couldn't the defence have called her to the stand as a hostile witness? I don't know the legal niceties involved in such an action, so was it a possibility they chose to ignore?

Question #2: Why would her status as a bigamist automatically render her testimony inadmissible?

Jim

Frederica · Post by **Frederica** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:50 am

Jim Roots wrote:One point in the trials that continues to baffle me ... okay, one point among many ... The prosecution refused to put its key witness on the stand because they knew she was a bigamist and her testimony would be immediately ruled inadmissible.

Question #1: Couldn't the defence have called her to the stand as a hostile witness? I don't know the legal niceties involved in such an action, so was it a possibility they chose to ignore?

Question #2: Why would her status as a bigamist automatically render her testimony inadmissible?
Jim

The bigamy had nothing to do with it. The State didn't call her because they knew she was lying about some things and they also knew she'd never stand up to cross-examination--she was too excitable. And yes, the Defense could have called her any time they wanted. When the State dropped her as a witness, they obligingly held her under subpoena so she could not leave town--just in case the Defense wanted to call her. They never did.

I doubt that Delmont was ever considered their key witness, BTW.

Jim Roots · Post by **Jim Roots** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:32 am

Well, Oderman suggests rather strongly that the prosecution's entire case rested on Delmont's version of the story. They only called witnesses whom they figured would support key elements of that version.

My thinking is that if the defence had put Delmont on the stand and gotten her to repeat her version, they could have shredded every bit of it and then challenged the prosecution to attempt to stitch it back together again. Then in the summing-up, they could have reminded the jury/juries that Delmont was a bigamist, an admitted liar, and a professional correspondent, and thus hardly someone whose word could be trusted.

I just feel, after reading each of those three books, that the defence strategy was inexplicably anemic, even when things had progressed to a third trial. Surely it dawned upon at that point that they weren't making any impression. Yet they never seemed to pull up their socks, and I can't figure out why.

Jim

Frederica · Post by **Frederica** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:17 pm

Jim Roots wrote:Well, Oderman suggests rather strongly that the prosecution's entire case rested on Delmont's version of the story. They only called witnesses whom they figured would support key elements of that version.

Stop and think about it. Who did he get that idea from? And as an ancillary question, how would she have known what the State's legal strategy was? Minta is the source for 95% of what we hold dear about the Arbuckle case, but she is such an unreliable witness and such a talespinner that I've discarded her altogether. She simply could not have known most of what she claimed to know.

(Srsly, is there any point on record where Minta responded to a question with "Gee, I don't know the answer to that. Why don't you go ask George O'Brien? He might know something." I think not! )

I can't be certain regarding the Prosecution's strategy, because no one ever asked any of them about the case later on (and Leo Friedman lived until 1972). Such an odd approach for an historian, don't you agree? It's an annoying lacunae but it's one I have to live with. However, I can make reasonable assumptions based on contemporary statements, timelines, events, and behavior, and nothing has convinced me that Delmont was ever considered the Prosecution's entire case. They had a corpse, remember?

My thinking is that if the defence had put Delmont on the stand and gotten her to repeat her version, they could have shredded every bit of it and then challenged the prosecution to attempt to stitch it back together again. Then in the summing-up, they could have reminded the jury/juries that Delmont was a bigamist, an admitted liar, and a professional correspondent, and thus hardly someone whose word could be trusted.

OK, bigamist she was, but the "professional correspondent" thing is another of Minta's fabrications, as are those "fifty counts of fraud and forgery" that often get flung around when Delmont's name is mentioned. Do you have any idea how much paperwork "fifty counts of fraud and forgery" would leave behind? Not to mention news coverage, we'd be buried in newsprint. But there is nothing. Nada, zippo, zero. I have checked criminal records in every Calilfornia county in which she lived--the woman didn't have so much as a parking ticket to her name. After pleading guilty to bigamy, she was released on probation, because it was her first offense. So if anyone has good evidence of Delmont's vast criminal empire, now is the time to produce it. Until then, I'm sticking with nada, zippo, zero.

Let me point something out. Delmont did testify, she testified at the Coroner's Inquest and at the Grand Jury proceeding. Neither jury believed her testimony, and they disbelieved it without benefit of cross-examination or of knowing about the VCE (Vast Criminal Empire). The juries in both instances reduced the murder charge to manslaughter. She did not testify at the Preliminary Hearing, but Judge Lazarus took the same action: he reduced the murder charge to manslaughter. All of these judicial bodies had the power to dismiss the charges altogether, yet all arrived at the same charge--Delmont or no Delmont. Clearly they were focusing on something other than Delmont's testimony. Delmont is a distraction.

I just feel, after reading each of those three books, that the defence strategy was inexplicably anemic, even when things had progressed to a third trial. Surely it dawned upon at that point that they weren't making any impression. Yet they never seemed to pull up their socks, and I can't figure out why.

Jim

Hmmm. Me, I would say they pulled out every stop they could find and then built a few new ones. But the question presented to the juries was much harder to answer than we've been led to believe.

Jim Roots · Post by **Jim Roots** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:53 am

If Delmont had been a "professional correspondent", then surely her name would turn up in a bunch of divorce hearings. Searching those records would be one hell of a formidable task, though.

And no, I don't believe Delmont headed a vast criminal empire. As I said earlier, one of the two things that puzzled me was why the testimony of a bigamist would be "automatically" ruled inadmissible. They let convicted murderers testify in court, why not a mere bigamist? I think Oderman must not have been as familiar with court procedures as he imagined he was. My second puzzlement was why the defence never called on Delmont ... but as you have pointed out, Oderman is simply wrong in claiming Delmont "never" testified. I'm satisfied with your explanation on that point.

At least according to my reading of Oderman, she was totally unreliable as a source of "information" about what actually happened in the hotel, yet the prosecution's case did appear to be based on her version of the incidents even if the lawyers never said so outright. They called witnesses whom they thought could corroborate certain details; they zeroed in on different details depending on the witness (e.g., one person would be closely questioned on the ice business, another would be closely questioned on the bathroom fracas, etc.) with only cursory questions about all the rest of the story ... but those details reflected Delmont's story. Delmont's version, in other words, seems to have been the skeleton upon which the prosecution tried to build their case. If I had been the defence lawyer, I probably would have gone after the skeleton first. Which is why I'm not a lawyer. Or at least not a good one.

The only bright idea the defence could come up with was to produce Virginia's ravaged internal organ (I forget which one ... bladder?), and even that stunt was only pulled in the third trial, and mostly for show.

I'm certainly looking forward to your book on the whole affair. (There, now I've upped the pressure on you...)

Jim

Frederica · Post by **Frederica** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:46 am

Jim Roots wrote:If Delmont had been a "professional correspondent", then surely her name would turn up in a bunch of divorce hearings. Searching those records would be one hell of a formidable task, though.

Not if she was named in the divorce suit (hence the word "correspondent.") All you'd have to do is check the indexes, her name would be listed. Been there, done that, nothing there. Ergo, I definitely need to see some proof of the allegation.

At least according to my reading of Oderman, she was totally unreliable as a source of "information" about what actually happened in the hotel, yet the prosecution's case did appear to be based on her version of the incidents even if the lawyers never said so outright. They called witnesses whom they thought could corroborate certain details; they zeroed in on different details depending on the witness (e.g., one person would be closely questioned on the ice business, another would be closely questioned on the bathroom fracas, etc.) with only cursory questions about all the rest of the story ... but those details reflected Delmont's story. Delmont's version, in other words, seems to have been the skeleton upon which the prosecution tried to build their case. If I had been the defence lawyer, I probably would have gone after the skeleton first. Which is why I'm not a lawyer. Or at least not a good one.

They questioned witnesses on what they had seen. People were going in and out of rooms, one person heard one thing, one didn't; one person saw one thing, one didn't, some people weren't there at all during the relevant time but were there before or after. You get a lot of little pieces of the puzzle and try to put them all together for the jury, but the evidence has to be direct. That's the way it works today, too.

The only bright idea the defence could come up with was to produce Virginia's ravaged internal organ (I forget which one ... bladder?), and even that stunt was only pulled in the third trial, and mostly for show.

Minta Piffle. The "ravaged internal organ," which was indeed the bladder, was presented into evidence at the Coroner's Inquest, presumably the Grand Jury hearing, the Preliminary Hearing, and all three of the trials. And that purloined uterus story? It's bandini.

I'm certainly looking forward to your book on the whole affair.
Jim

Me too.

Rodney · Post by **Rodney** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:41 am

Almost totally off the topic, I suppose, but Mont Alto will be presenting The Cook (along with Chaplin's The Kid) in Red Cloud, Nebraska this Saturday for the Willa Cather Foundation's annual conference. Red Cloud is really not very far from Smith Center, Arbuckle's birthplace.

azjazzman · Post by **azjazzman** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:44 am

Re: Maude Delmont - Sources other than Minta claimed that Maude's specialty was a "badger game", which of course is a form of blackmail and would not leave any sort of legal trail. This is quite different from "professional corespondent".

In addition, it's pretty well known that Delmont had at least a half dozen aliases, which would complicate any attempt to trace legal documents pertaining to her activities in the 1920's.

Frederica · Post by **Frederica** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:52 am

azjazzman wrote:Re: Maude Delmont - Sources other than Minta claimed that Maude's specialty was a "badger game", which of course is a form of blackmail and would not leave any sort of legal trail. This is quite different from "professional corespondent".

In addition, it's pretty well known that Delmont had at least a half dozen aliases, which would complicate any attempt to trace legal documents pertaining to her activities in the 1920's.

What sources? Names, dates, times, incidents, PROOF.

Richard Warner · Post by **Richard Warner** » Fri May 06, 2011 11:26 am

Paul E. Gierucki wrote: You might also be interested to know that CineMuseum is currently producing THE ARBUCKLE ANTHOLOGY. We are working with historians, film archives and private collectors around the world to create the definitive HD collection of Arbuckle's very best works. This is one of the largest, most elaborate collections I have ever had the pleasure to curate. Watch for more news later this summer.

Very exciting! I'm all steamed up about the "more news later this summer". I'm sure you'll have a few surprises for us. You always do.

WaverBoy · Post by **WaverBoy** » Fri May 06, 2011 1:59 pm

Paul E. Gierucki wrote:This same frustration (and the discovery of Arbuckle's personal scrapbook, documents, letters and photo albums) lead me to start researching for this new book over 15 years ago. I have worked almost exclusively from primary sources, debunking the many myths, fallacies and misrepresentations which mar previous works. In short, this effort reveals the true life story of Roscoe Arbuckle. I expect to be finished later this year.

You might also be interested to know that CineMuseum is currently producing THE ARBUCKLE ANTHOLOGY. We are working with historians, film archives and private collectors around the world to create the definitive HD collection of Arbuckle's very best works. This is one of the largest, most elaborate collections I have ever had the pleasure to curate. Watch for more news later this summer.

Paul,

Will this new set contain all the titles that were in the old set, plus more?

I anxiously await THE ARBUCKLE ANTHOLOGY and your upcoming book, and will buy both of them as soon as they hit.

Arbuckle Bios

Arbuckle Bios

Re: Arbuckle Bios

Re: Arbuckle Bios

Re: Arbuckle Bios

Re: Arbuckle Bios