Contempt for History 101
Harlett O'Dowd
http://www.calendarlive.com/stage/theater/cl-wk-theater15may15,0,3636741.story?coll=cl%2Dtheater
I know our present administration in DC has nothing but contempt for
history and is damning the planet to relive things over and over
again, but the concept that Jolson, for all is warts should be
actively forgotten by the world and have his stardom posthumously
revoked because the shows in which he appeared are unrevivable is
making my head spin.
Any thoughts?
Anyway, here's the article:
_______
COMMENTARY
Let sleeping eras and their stars lie
As Al Jolson's fans gather, there is much in his legend that should
remain buried.
Onstage listings:
Theater (larger) Theater (smaller) Dance Dinner Theater
Classical / Opera ---------------(by genre)Comedy Drama Musical
Select an area:
All AreasDowntown L.A. Hollywood / WeHo Mid-Wilshire Westside San
Fernando Valley San Gabriel Valley South Bay Orange County Riverside
County San Bernardino Co. Ventura County
Select a date range:
Today
This weekend
Next 7 days
Or, search by keyword:
By Don Shirley, Times Staff Writer
I guess you had to be there -- when Al Jolson was the toast of
Broadway.
"When Jolson enters," wrote humorist Robert Benchley in 1925, "it is
as if an electric current had been run along the wires under the
seats.... The house comes to tumultuous attention. He speaks, rolls
his eyes, compresses his lips, and it is all over. You are a life
member of the Al Jolson Association."
It wasn't just New Yorkers who could join the association. He often
took his act on the road. Even now, more than five decades after his
1950 death, about 150 fans still care enough about Jolson to gather
this weekend at the Queen Mary in Long Beach for a series of seminars
and screenings that will conclude Sunday afternoon with a ceremonial
tribute to Jolson at his grave in Culver City.
Reading the accolades for Jolson's performances and the reports of his
skyrocketing income ($10,000 a week plus a percentage above a certain
gross), you might be inclined to sigh about the state of stage stardom
today. In the 21st century, it's unlikely that a stage luminary will
become an enormous star in the larger cultural universe. The stage is
no longer center stage. The theater can't pay big bucks or bestow the
lasting fame that's possible when performances are recorded and easily
accessible to millions via the electronic media.
Jolson's career, by contrast, went downhill when he began
concentrating on movies and radio. True, he's most famous today as the
star of a movie, "The Jazz Singer," but only because it's usually
considered the first commercial "talkie," not because his performance
in it was ageless -- or even good. Nearly every firsthand Jolson
observer agreed that his movies and radio appearances were mere
shadows of his stage appearances.
So was Jolson's heyday a golden age for the stage? Not if you look a
little more closely.
The shows that Jolson was in are almost totally forgotten. From their
plot synopses, they sound inane at best. Almost every script that we
think of as a classic American play or musical was produced after
Jolson's Broadway peak.
Even if Jolson had been doing great scripts, one big obstacle for
modern audiences remains: In the theater, Jolson usually wore
blackface.
Defenders of the practice, which was established long before Jolson,
say that it wasn't malicious; Jolson's characters were sympathetic.
But the fact is that thousands of white people were laughing at the
antics of a white man who was pretending to be black. If none of the
guffaws arose from the blackface itself, why did anyone bother with
it?
For many reasons, it wasn't healthy for the American theater focus on
the cult of an actor's personality. Writers should matter more than
stars. It's better to develop theater that will continue to speak to
other generations across time, perhaps in reinterpreted versions.
Furthermore, theater is a social art form; its examinations of
characters within groups are usually more interesting than star
vehicles or solo shows. While the living presence of an idol may
provide a momentary thrill, star quality doesn't necessarily translate
into stage quality.
The American theater is also healthier today because it isn't as New
York-centric as it was in Jolson's era. Jolson was a trouper on the
road, but his shows originated in New York, and he settled in L.A.
only after he started making movies. Now, indigenous professional
theater grows in many cities.
In a recent commentary published in The Times, New York-based critic
Linda Winer lamented that stars must "choose between screen work in
Los Angeles and theater in New York." Who says? As long as they don't
care if they get the salaries that accompany long Broadway runs,
actors who want to work on a stage need not do it in New York. If
today's theaters can't afford a star, plenty of other actors will do
the role just as well.
The American theater should shed no tears for the "Mammy" years.
Parterrebox
Surely there is room both for writers' theater and performers' theater, even
today.
Weissharry
This is a great point. Any Hollywood actor with any recognition could find a
regional theater to let him or her play just about any part--provided they come
to an agreement early enough to schedule it into the following season. If Meryl
Streep wants to play Truman in Give 'em Hell, Harry, some theater will let her
do it.
The notion that actors have to choose is nonsense. Yes, they might have to turn
down a movie if they've committed to a stage run (which, in regional theater,
wouldn't mean more than six weeks or so) but that's a money issue, not a "can"
or "can't" issue.
Beb11572
William Ferry
is clearly someone with an axe to grind (or at least someone who didn't have
his Postum for breakfast this morning).
For what it's worth, my younger son, of whom I've written several times
(he's only eight), has sat through THE JOLSON STORY and JOLSON SINGS AGAIN.
When my wife asked him why he likes Jolson, he replied, "He's a good
singer."
While that writer is certainly entitled to his opinion, there are several
points I'd like to address:
1. I'm not sure that Jolson "chose" to concentrate on radio and movies. I
think he did his last Broadway show as late as around 1939-1941 (wasn't it
HOLD ONTO YOUR HATS?)
2. While many great Broadway shows were produced after Jolson's peak, many
Gershwin, Berlin, Porter, Kern shows only ran a year or so, which was
considered a hit back then, by the way. I'm not sure it's fair to say that
Jolson's shows were any worse than any that followed.
3. A personality is what makes stars in the first place. What are many of
today's films and shows but star vehicles?
4. "Hits" are often ephemeral. Who's to say that it's better or more
important to make something that's timeless. This is a very short-sighted
view on that writer's part. Any work of art can speak to future generations,
given the proper interpretation.
5. I do not advocate a return to blackface. However, as many observers wiser
and more eloquent than I have noted, things like blackface, stereotypes,
Stephen Foster melodies, ABIE'S IRISH ROSE, the Frito Bandito, and Tom Green
movies are part of our culture, for better or worse. Sure, ignore them if
they offend you (I wouldn't blame you a bit). But to borrow a phrase from
the gay movement, they're here, get used to it.
I realize tastes in show business are often a personal thing, and some
performers lack that certain something that enables their fame and
popularity to transcend their time. However, as Al Jolson is IMHO widely
regarded as one of the true legends of entertainment, I'm sure his
reputation, like D.W. Griffith's, will survive petty attacks like this,
which seek to harp upon one politically incorrect chink in the armor, with
the intent of damning as worthless one's entire work of art.
--
Yours for bigger and better silents (and good musicals, too),
Bill Ferry
"Harlett O'Dowd" <chris.c...@worldspan.com> wrote in message
news:6b3e506.03051...@posting.google.com...
Archie Waugh
Harlett O'Dowd wrote:
> found this article at http://www.broadwaystars.com/. The link is:
>
> http://www.calendarlive.com/stage/theater/cl-wk-theater15may15,0,3636741.story?coll=cl%2Dtheater
>
> I know our present administration in DC has nothing but contempt for
> history and is damning the planet to relive things over and over
> again, but the concept that Jolson, for all is warts should be
> actively forgotten by the world and have his stardom posthumously
> revoked because the shows in which he appeared are unrevivable is
> making my head spin.
>
> Any thoughts?
Yes. Your opening comment has nothing (even in an allegorical sense) to do with your subject. The
article itself is stupid, badly researched, shows little real knowledge of Jolson, or of theatre.
Everyone knows that Jolson's shows were an excuse to let him SING; he was notorious for stopping a
show in the middle, sitting on the edge of the stage, quickly wrapping up the plotlines, and
spending the rest of the evening singing, to the audience's delight. The authors' over-emphasis on
Jolson's use of blackface is pure ignorance. In short, Jolson was simply a one-of-a-kind powerhouse
SINGER; like Garland, or Streisand, or Elvis; each just happened to come along at the right time for
the right technology to exploit their talents; comparisons to "modern" Broadway theatre trends (or
American theatre trends in general) are pointless. So basically I agree with your comments on the
article.
I am, however, bemused by what you purport to "know" about "our present administration in DC".
Archie Waugh
Bill Vermillion
Ferry <vze3...@verizon.net> wrote:
>As a card-carrying Jolson fan of long standing, I am seriously
>P.O.'ed. This is clearly someone with an axe to grind (or at
>least someone who didn't have his Postum for breakfast this
>morning).
>For what it's worth, my younger son, of whom I've written
>several times (he's only eight), has sat through THE JOLSON
>STORY and JOLSON SINGS AGAIN. When my wife asked him why he
>likes Jolson, he replied, "He's a good singer."
I loved those film - as hokey as they are. And those brought
Jolson back into the spotlight again and he even toured into Korea
for the soldiers there. Not many artists have a second shot at
popularity.
>1. I'm not sure that Jolson "chose" to concentrate on radio and movies. I
>think he did his last Broadway show as late as around 1939-1941 (wasn't it
>HOLD ONTO YOUR HATS?)
And I do like a couple of his old films. The dancing sequnce that
multipled the dancers many times over is a marvel to behold. Was
that not in Wonderbar? I have about 4 of his - and some are spotty
- but I still like them.
And as a kid - during the Jolson revival of the '50 I had
four 78RPM albums of his songs.
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Mack Twamley
Shirley's head that would make him want to badmouth a performer who's been
deceased for 53 years. After I read it, I couldn't see the
point of it all...unless that Mr. Shirley didn't like the fact that Jolson
sometimes appeared in blackface.
So did Bing Crosby, in at least one film.
So Jolson's Broadway shows were forgettable?
So was "Very Warm for May" which introduced the song "All the Things You
Are", remembered long after the show was forgotten.
I wonder if Shirley has ever seen any Jolson films other than The Jazz
Singer.
I'm reminded of what Ruby Keeler said about Al.
"Yes, Al Jolson is indeed the World's Greatest Entertainer. I know this
because he told me so every day of our marriage."
James Neibaur
Jolson wore blackface and sang about his "mammy."
Eminem wears ball caps, pants that don't fit, and says "yo sup, ah be coo!"
JN
James Neibaur
vze3...@verizon.net wrote on 5/16/03 3:03 PM:
> As a card-carrying Jolson fan of long standing, I am seriously P.O.'ed. This
> is clearly someone with an axe to grind (or at least someone who didn't have
> his Postum for breakfast this morning).
Jolie's name would not have lived on had he not made a fairly significant
contribution. I think his name will continue to live long after we've
wrapped fish in the newspaper containing Mr. Shirley's article.
JN
James Neibaur
kingo_nos...@hotmail.com wrote on 5/16/03 11:00 PM:
> Speaking of pathetic, the article was that in spades (can you say that any
> more?). The same types would be happy to burn every copy of Huck Finn.
And then there are the ones who picket those dangerous Dixie Chick concerts
JN
Beb11572
>
>Eminem wears ball caps, pants that don't fit, and says "yo sup, ah be coo!"
>
If Al Jolson were alive today, what do you think he would say about Eminem? :)
Steve Newport
Re: Contempt for History 101
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Sat, May 17, 2003, 5:09am (EDT+4)
From: jnei...@wi.rr.com (James Neibaur) Jolson wore blackface and
sang about his "mammy."
Eminem wears ball caps, pants that don't fit, and says "yo sup, ah be
coo!"
Steve Newport
Re: Contempt for History 101
From: vze3...@verizon.net (William Ferry)
Things like blackface, stereotypes, Stephen Foster melodies, ABIE'S
IRISH ROSE, and the Frito Bandito are part of our culture, for better or
worse.
--------------------------------------------
SN: Don't forget Elvis.
-------------------------------------------
I'm sure Jolson's reputation, like D.W. Griffith's, will survive petty
attacks like this, which seek to harp upon one politically incorrect
Steve Newport
Re: Contempt for History 101
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Fri, May 16, 2003, 9:29pm (EDT-3)
From: mack...@dslextreme.com (Mack Twamley) I read this article in
yesterday's Times (LA) and wondered what got into Don Shirley's head
that would make him want to badmouth a performer who's been deceased for
53 years. After I read it, I couldn't see the point of it
all...unless that Mr. Shirley didn't like the fact that Jolson sometimes
appeared in blackface. So did Bing Crosby.....
Jon Parker
His points, as I understand them, are that blackface was offensive, that
having the theater dependent upon star power was a bad thing, and that it's
been healthy to see the stage move beyond its New York roots.
Just what is it that's bugging you? Do you disagree with any of those
points? If so, why?
j
"Harlett O'Dowd" <chris.c...@worldspan.com> wrote in message
news:6b3e506.03051...@posting.google.com...
Steve Newport
much a non-issue now, too.
Re: Contempt for History 101
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Sat, May 17, 2003, 1:30pm (EDT-1)
From: jond...@hotmail.com (Jon Parker)
I completely fail to see just what you find bothersome about this
article. His points, that having the theater dependent upon star power
was a bad thing, and that it's been healthy to see the stage move beyond
its New York roots. Do you disagree with any of those points?
Steve Newport
Re: Contempt for History 101
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Sat, May 17, 2003, 5:34pm (EDT+4)
From: beb1...@aol.com (Beb11572)
<<<Jolson wore blackface and sang about his "mammy." Eminem wears ball
caps, pants that don't fit, and says "yo sup, ah be coo!" >>>
------------------
If Al Jolson were alive today, what do you think he would say about
Eminem? :)
parterre box
Jon Parker wrote in
> His points, as I understand them, are that blackface was offensive,
No, the writer's point was that blackface *is* offensive, and therefore
*must have been* offensive through all of time.
> that having the theater dependent upon star power was a bad thing,
No, the writer's point was that writing is invariably more important than
performing. And, no, I don't agree with that. Sometimes mediocre material
happens to be an ideal vehicle for a great talent.
> and that it's been healthy to see the stage move beyond its New York
roots.
That I didn't get at all. And, frankly, I think there was a lot more
professional theater back in the 1920s and 1930s (the road) than there is
now.
Jon Parker
Jolson by modern ausdiences. And it is.
Blackface is intolerable now, and it should have been intolerable then. It
wasn't "different," it was disgusting. It may have been a product of its
time, but the time was one in which it was considered socially aceptable to
mock black people in public. Regardless of how Jolson himself felt about his
portrayals, they were offensive. There was a time when women were chattel
and black people were property in this country as well, and those attitudes
can and should be condemned not just from a modern perspective but from the
perspective of their own era as well.
Your analogy to Griffith doesn't hold up, because DWG is considered a
pioneer in spite of his racist attitudes, not because of them. I can
appreciated BoaN for what it lent to the development of film narrative, but
it's still repulsive. Jolson, on the other hand, broke no new ground and
didn't lend anything to the development of film or stage other than being
chosen to appear in an early sound picture. He didn't invent or contribute
to the process.
Does blackface need to be forgotten? No. But it doesn't need to be
"appreciated" either, and neither does Jolson.
"parterre box" <parte...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:H_zxa.25787$zt.1...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
parterre box
>He didn't say that. He said that blackface is an obstacle to appreciation
of
>Jolson by modern ausdiences. And it is.
Because you say so?
In fact, this is what the writer said:
"Even if Jolson had been doing great scripts, one big obstacle for modern
audiences remains: In the theater, Jolson usually wore blackface."
You keep saying "disgusting" and "offensive" without bothering to specify
*who* was disgusted or offended; in other words assuming that disgust and
offense are absolute conditions. They're not. In Jolson's time, the audience
was neither disgusted nor offended -- no matter what you think they "should"
have done.
The other point of contention here is the automatic assumption that
blackface was automatically "mocking" black people. I don't think it was.
For Jolson, it was a costume, and the blackface character was a persona. The
"obstacle" is a product of a smug modern attitude that we have all the
answers, and that our morality is the only applicable one in all situations.
That's shortsighted, and, dare I to say it, is the real meaning of
"political correctness" -- we don't approve, therefore no one should ever
have approved.
All your cant about women being chattels is utterly irrelevant. Or should we
ban "The Taming of the Shrew" because the denouement includes Katharina's
speech about the proper (i.e. subservient) place of women in a marital
relationship?
Beb11572
>Jolson by modern ausdiences. And it is.
>
>Blackface is intolerable now, and it should have been intolerable then. It
>wasn't "different," it was disgusting. It may have been a product of its
>time, but the time was one in which it was considered socially aceptable to
>mock black people in public. Regardless of how Jolson himself felt about his
>portrayals, they were offensive. There was a time when women were chattel
>and black people were property in this country as well, and those attitudes
>can and should be condemned not just from a modern perspective but from the
>perspective of their own era as well.
[SNIP]
Jolson, on the other hand, broke no new ground and
>didn't lend anything to the development of film or stage other than being
>chosen to appear in an early sound picture. He didn't invent or contribute
>to the process.
>
>Does blackface need to be forgotten? No. But it doesn't need to be
>"appreciated" either, and neither does Jolson.
Although I agree that blackface is certainly embarrassing by today's standards,
your cavalier dismissal of Al Jolson is most unfortunate. There is much that
you, like many people today, apparently don't know or understand about this
great performer:
(Excerpted from the Los Angeles Times, Friday, October 20, 2000)
PALM SPRINGS--On a recent Saturday afternoon, while patrons at the Starbucks on
Palm Canyon Drive sipped cappucccinos, across the street a crowd stood
listening to a man who's been dead for 50 years. "If my song can reach your
shoes and start you tappin' your feet, I'm happy," warbled Al Jolson on a CD
player.
The 70-odd fans who had gathered to witness Jolson's name placed in the city's
"Walk of Stars" looked pretty happy too. As the ceremony got underway, there
were speeches by members of the International Al Jolson Society (sponsors of
the event), a proclamation read by the city's mayor pro tem, and a spirited
impression of the "mammy singer" by performer Richard Halpern. Fans came from
around the U.S. and even England where a hit show about Jolson played the West
End in 1995.
Despite Jolson's durability, few would have predicted a revival of interest in
the blackface tradition he personified--but of course that was before Spike
Lee's new film "Bamboozled" opened in limited release on Oct. 6--it spreads to
200 additional screens nationwide today ...
The New Yorker's Anthony Lane bemoaned the images of blacks in films--from D.W.
Griffith to Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland blacked up; his indignation was
exceeded only by that of Time's Richard Corliss, who said of Jolson that he
"wallowed in racial derision." Presumably nothing less than a posthumous
indictment for human rights violations would suffice for the king of the
blackface performers.
Jolson would be shocked by this vilification. During his lifetime, he was
never the object of pickets or protests. Indeed, James Weldon Johnson, a
leading figure of the Harlem Renaissance, praised Jolson for helping to promote
the production of Garland Anderson's "Appearances," the first play by a black
writer to reach Broadway. Among the 20,000 mourners who showed up for his
funeral in 1950 was Noble Sissle, a black songwriter and performer who came as
the official representative of the Negro Actors' Guild.
Jolson was empathetic toward black people, as difficult as that might be for
Lee or others to believe (Lee declined to be interviewed for this story).
Reared in Washington, D.C., a city of Northern charm and Southern bigotry,
Jolson crossed the color line to perform in the streets with black friends.
Later in life he would publish an admiring article about Jack Johnson, shoot
craps with Bill Robinson, haunt black cabarets in Harlem, and golf with Joe
Louis.
For Jolson, then, blackface was a way of bonding with the African American
world, not ridiculing it. As Herbert G. Goldman observes in "Jolson: The
Legend Comes to Life," a superb 1988 biography, burnt-cork makeup liberated "an
impudent and joyous harlequin" in the young showman, allowing him to "display
an elan no other performer--black or white--would dare exhibit."
Jolson's mature style--the loose-limbed, uninhibited dance moves, jazz-charged
rhythms and shout-it-out vocal manner--made him the first major white
entertainer to adopt black performance modes, anticipating everyone from Elvis
to Eminem. It was these black-derived elements, combined with the throbbing
wails of the synagogue (his father was a cantor), that made him a seminal force
in popular music.
People who view Jolson strictly as a purveyor of insulting racial images don't
realize that he too wrestled with the issue of how to create a sympathetic but
entertaining black character ... he would appear in eight hit shows, all for
the Shuberts, becoming the biggest Broadway star in history. As his power grew
so did the magnetism and depth of the black character, Gus the Butler, that he
played in every show.
Although nominally a menial, Gus consisitently outmaneuvered the white people
around him; he was quick-witted, touching, dynamic and sexy, a walking (or
strutting) refutation of white superiority.
In the Spike Lee-directed concert film "Kings of Comedy," Cedric the
Entertainer muses about the possibility of a black president, then delights the
almost all-black auditorium by suggesting that President Clinton "is pretty
close." Perhaps black audiences of Jolson's time, recognizing his instinctual
identification with them, thought he was pretty close too. Such a theory would
help explain Harlem's response to "The Jazz Singer," which ends with Jolson
singing "Mammy" in blackface.
When the movie was shown at the Lafayette Theater in 1928, the New York
Amsterdam News, a black newspaper, called it "one of the greatest films ever
made," and noted that during the "dramatic moments" there were "sobs heard all
over the theater."
As recently as 1956, a blacked-up Norman Brooks played Jolson in "The Best
Things in Life Are Free," a routine bio-pic about the songwriting team of
DeSylva, Brown and Henderson, without raising any fuss. Since then, blackface
has come to be regarded as a moral typhus, and Jolson's actual historical role
as a popularizer of black music and dance has been largely obscured.
All-black musicals had played white venues in New York as far back as 1898, but
they did not become a Broadway commonplace until "Shuffle Along" (1921), 10
years after Jolson began promoting what one disgusted critic called "repellent
Negro art." In the movies there is good cause to think that Jolson's impact
may have been much the same. Henry T. Sampson, an African American authority
on black theater and film, notes that Warner Bros. "decided to add a soundtrack
to 'The Jazz Singer' because they 'were attempting to exploit the popularity of
black music." He identifies, as a happy byproduct of the film's enormous
success, the decision of "Vitaphone and other major companies to produce
musical shorts featuring some of the top black entertainers of the time," among
them Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, the Nicholas Brothers and Ethel Waters.
In other words, rather than embarrassing or offending black Americans of his
day, Jolson's work helped many of their leading talents to break into the
movies.
Clearly Jolson's standing with the black songwriters, musicians and vocalists
whose careers overlapped his own was very different than his present
ignominious image would suggest. Jolson was a longtime friend of jazz pianist
Eubie Blake, whom he vociferously defended in an ugly episode of racial
discrimination in Hartford, Conn. And one of Armstrong's biographers, Laurence
Bergreen, reports that "Satchmo" himself occasionally did a Jolson impression
(as did Sammy Davis, Jr.).
Jolson would go on to make "Hallelujah, I'm a Bum," a 1930's film in which the
white hero's best friend is black and "The Singing Kid," in which he defied
Hollywood's practive of segregating black talent into "specialty numbers,"
teaming with Cab Calloway for three musical sequences.
"And talk about integration," Calloway enthused in his 1976 autobiography "Of
Minnie the Moocher and Me," "We were co-stars in the film so we recieved equal
treatment." Lee, who finds African Americans complicit in their own debasement
by white society, would no doubt scornfully reject any reappraisal of Jolson's
work. The message of "Bamboozled" is that America is hopelessly polarized
along racial lines. But the colorful, transcultural banners fluttering all
over L.A. to advertise its arts institutions--to cite but one example--tell a
different story, suggesting much ethnic interconnectedness. And in the first
half of the last century we had a Russian immigrant who became the nation's
most popular entertainer; he was a white man who donned the identity of a
black, a Jew who sang "You Made Me Love You" to a Christian nation that loved
him right back.
Victor Morton
> found this article at http://www.broadwaystars.com/. The link is:
>
> http://www.calendarlive.com/stage/theater/cl-wk-theater15may15,0,3636741.story
> ?coll=cl%2Dtheater
>
>
> I know our present administration in DC has nothing but contempt for
> history and is damning the planet to relive things over and over
> again, but the concept that Jolson, for all is warts should be
> actively forgotten by the world and have his stardom posthumously
> revoked because the shows in which he appeared are unrevivable is
> making my head spin.
Actually, what makes *my* head spin is the blaming of this article, however
indirectly or allusively, upon "our present administration in DC," which,
whatever its faults, is not exactly leading the charge to ban, burn, shame,
blacklist or hide away Al Jolson films or such similar complaint-objects as
HUCKLEBERRY FINN or BEULAH or JULIA.
In fact, the people who *do* lead such campaign come almost entirely from
the other end of the political spectrum and draw for recruits upon the sorts
of people who hold "our present administration in DC" in utter contempt.
> Any thoughts?
About the article itself? It's a piece of self-righteous, presentist shit
that deserves no further comment.
Victor
IrisR1
I agree. And thanks, beb11572, for this well-argued and well-presented
posting.
Best,
Larry Raiken
James Neibaur
vjmo...@erols.com wrote on 5/18/03 12:41 AM:
> Actually, what makes *my* head spin is the blaming of this article, however
> indirectly or allusively, upon "our present administration in DC," which,
> whatever its faults, is not exactly leading the charge to ban, burn, shame,
> blacklist or hide away Al Jolson films or such similar complaint-objects as
> HUCKLEBERRY FINN or BEULAH or JULIA.
>
> In fact, the people who *do* lead such campaign come almost entirely from
> the other end of the political spectrum and draw for recruits upon the sorts
> of people who hold "our present administration in DC" in utter contempt.
That's true. When it comes to censorship, both sides are wrong.
JN
Beb11572
My pleasure, irisr1! :)
Stephen Cooke
Jon Stewart said it hilarious on The Daily Show the other night (in
reference to an interesting-sounding book called The Language Police):
"The right wants us to go back in time to a world that never existed in
the first place, while the left is leaning towards a utopia that would be
unBEARable if we actually had to live in it."
swac
"You've shot down my entire vocabulary!"
Steve Newport
Re: Contempt for History 101
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Sun, May 18, 2003, 1:57am (EDT+4)
From: parte...@aol.com (parterre box) the automatic assumption that
blackface was automatically "mocking" black people. For Jolson, it was a
costume, and the blackface character was a persona. The "obstacle" is a
product of a smug modern attitude that we have all the answers, and that
our morality is the only applicable one in all situations. That's
shortsighted, and, dare I to say it, is the real meaning of "political
correctness" -- we don't approve, therefore no one should ever have
approved.
Steve Newport
Jolson 101 (WAS Re: Contempt for History 101)
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Sun, May 18, 2003, 3:42am (EDT+4)
From: beb1...@aol.com (Beb11572)
<<<The New Yorker's Anthony Lane bemoaned the images of blacks in
films--from D.W. Griffith to Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland blacked up;
his indignation was exceeded only by that of Time's Richard Corliss, who
said of Jolson that he "wallowed in racial derision." Presumably nothing
less than a posthumous indictment for human rights violations would
suffice for the king of the blackface performers.>>>
-------------------------------------------
It was these black-derived elements, combined with the throbbing wails
of the synagogue (his father was a cantor), that made him a seminal
force in popular music. As his power grew so did the magnetism and depth
of the black character, Gus the Butler, that he played in every show.
Clearly Jolson's standing with the black songwriters, musicians and
vocalists whose careers overlapped his own was very different than his
present ignominious image would suggest. In the first half of the last
century we had a Russian immigrant who became the nation's most popular
entertainer; he was a white man who donned the identity of a black, a
Jew who sang "You Made Me Love You" to a Christian nation that loved him
right back.
parterre box
that emerged from them. But my intuition is that "Gus" was a version of the
old "clever servant" Roman theater/commedia dell'arte character a la Figaro
or Pseudolus. That's a whole different type from the Stepin Fetchit
"cowardly servant" that so many people seem to associate automatically with
blackface.
Beb11572
right. Pseudolous would be a great analogy -- and come to think of it, had
FORUM been done in his lifetime, Jolson probably would have made a super one!
Steve Newport
Re: Jolson 101 (WAS Re: Contempt for History 101)
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Sun, May 18, 2003, 6:15pm (EDT+4)
From: beb1...@aol.com (Beb11572)
Having seen the film of BIG BOY, in which Jolson played Gus, Pseudolous
would be a great analogy -- and come to think of it, had FORUM been done
in his lifetime, Jolson probably would have made a super one!
El Dorado
Bravo, parterre box!
You have a solid grasp of fundamental facts, in spite of some PC folks'
insistence that their view is the only view. My introduction to Al Jolson
was the 1946 film, "The Jolson Story," and it never once occurred to me that
his blackface numbers were "mocking" black people. If anything, they were a
sort of homage.
Cheers,
Dan N.
Eric Stott
El Dorado wrote:ons.
> > That's shortsighted, and, dare I to say it, is the real meaning of
> > "political correctness" -- we don't approve, therefore no one should ever
> > have approved.
>
> Bravo, parterre box!
>
> You have a solid grasp of fundamental facts, in spite of some PC folks'
> insistence that their view is the only view. My introduction to Al Jolson
> was the 1946 film, "The Jolson Story," and it never once occurred to me that
> his blackface numbers were "mocking" black people. If anything, they were a
> sort of homage.
>
> Cheers,
> Dan N.
I find Jolson's blackface considerably less offensive than Bing Crosby's
attempts, which are loaded with horrifying dialect. Jolson remained pretty much
himself blackface or not. Hey- Eddie Cantor tended to spout Yiddish in
blackface!
Stott
Steve Newport
filled with "horrifying dialect." He didn't need blackface.
Re: Contempt for History 101
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Mon, May 19, 2003, 5:14am From:
est...@localnet.com (Eric Stott)
I find Jolson's blackface considerably less offensive than Bing Crosby's
attempts, which are loaded with horrifying dialect.
Harlett O'Dowd
> Actually, what makes *my* head spin is the blaming of this article, however
> indirectly or allusively, upon "our present administration in DC," which,
> whatever its faults, is not exactly leading the charge to ban, burn, shame,
> blacklist or hide away Al Jolson films or such similar complaint-objects as
> HUCKLEBERRY FINN or BEULAH or JULIA.
My point, badly communicated, was this sort of
let's-pretend-this-didn't-happen and/or
let's-rewrite-history-to-tell-it-the-way-we-WANT-it-to-have-happened
and/or f*ck-history-i'll-do-what-I-want and/or history-what's-history
attitude is epidemic in america from the top on down - right and left.
I keep thinking of Rhett Butler's speech to Charles Hamilton et al
about southern arrogance and how tunnel-vision will doom us all to
misery.
Mark S. Davies
Newport) wrote:
>It's a good thing Georgie Jessel turned down the part. BFS.
>
I may be completely mis-remembering this, but I thought Jessel had
accepted the part (in The Jazz Singer), and Jolson pulled some behind
the scenes manuever that aced Jessel out of the role. I can't
remember where I saw this, but I believe they were friends up to that
point, and bitter rivals afterwards.
Mark Davies
And if the BFS was an irony alert, and I've just pulled an Emily
Litella, then "Oh. Never miiiiind".
Steve Newport
Re: Contempt for History 101
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Sun, May 18, 2003, 12:27pm
(EDT+1) From: am...@chebucto.ns.ca (Stephen Cooke) When it comes to
censorship, both sides are wrong.
Jon Stewart said on The Daily Show the other night (in reference to an
interesting-sounding book called The Language Police): "The Right wants
us to go back in time to a world that never existed in the first place,
while the Left is leaning towards a utopia that would be unBEARable if
we actually had to live in it."
Precode
> I completely fail to see just what you find bothersome about this article.
>
What's offensive about this article--which nobody has yet
mentioned--is that it was supposed to be about the Jolson Society's
weekend convention aboard the Queen Mary. Instead of listing films,
guests, activities, etc., or talking with any of its runners about
what Jolson means to them (and therefore us), he just used it as a
soapbox to trash the man and the entire show biz tradition he
embodied. Regardless of what you think of Jolson, this was utterly
indefensible even as entertainment journalism and should've appeared
on the op-ed page labeled "commentary."
Mike S.
(And if there's no more blackface, what do you call Darrell Hammond
playing Jesse Jackson on SNL?)
Harlett O'Dowd
> On Sun, 18 May 2003 13:06:52 -0400 (EDT), srrne...@webtv.net (Steve
> Newport) wrote:
>
> >It's a good thing Georgie Jessel turned down the part. BFS.
> >
> I may be completely mis-remembering this, but I thought Jessel had
> accepted the part (in The Jazz Singer), and Jolson pulled some behind
> the scenes manuever that aced Jessel out of the role. I can't
> remember where I saw this, but I believe they were friends up to that
> point, and bitter rivals afterwards.
I'll triple check but *believe* Jessel played the part on stage,
turned down the film and never forgave Jolson (and himself) for the
one-upsmanship.
robert armstrong
in Jazz Singer. I agree with a lot of these ideas, especially that
modern theatre has more to do with the writing, but conclusion that
history "should remain buried" is indeed ignorant of what history is.
Bob A
"Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"
Beb11572
>filled with "horrifying dialect." He didn't need blackface.
>
It wasn't horrifying dialect -- he was imitating Satchmo. And I'm sure Satchmo
knew it for what it was - the highest form of flattery.
Steve Newport
Re: Contempt for History 101
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Mon, May 19, 2003, 1:39pm (EDT-3)
From: michael_s...@spe.sony.com (Precode) If there's no more
blackface, what do you call Darrell Hammond playing Jesse Jackson on
SNL?
Beb11572
>attempts, which are loaded with horrifying dialect. Jolson remained pretty
>much
>himself blackface or not.
You're right. I love Crosby as well as Jolson, but HOLIDAY INN's "Abraham" is
not one of his proudest moments. In fact, this unfortunate number (and its
even more shocking setup, which I will get to in a moment) disfigures one of my
otherwise favorite movies of all time ... and precludes me from ever showing it
to my students.
For anyone who hasn't seen the film ... this number is Irving Berlin's homage
to Abraham Lincoln, performed by Bing Crosby and Marjorie Reynolds, both in
blackface. They sing about how Lincoln "set the darky [ouch] free," etc., with
Crosby assuming the usual stereotypical dialect.
The unfortunate premise here is that Crosby wants to "hide" Reynolds;
otherwise, if Astaire sees her, he will whisk her out of Bing's arms into his
own and off to Hollywood. So Crosby's "ingenious" idea is to apply the
burnt-cork makeup to Reynolds and then himself (as the decoy?).
While Crosby is applying the makeup to Reynolds (his own transformation
occuring later, off-camera), she utters one of the most horrifying lines I've
ever heard in any film, something to the effect of "Oh, no, I wanted to look
beautiful ... I guess this is my punishment for being so vain" -- or something
like that.
Now THAT ... even in 1942 ... come on!! It's pretty hard to fathom that
*noone* connected with the film -- not the screenwriters, not the director or
producer, not Reynolds, Crosby or Astaire ... -- found this racist and
offensive.
On the other hand, I can't help but wonder what Louise Beavers (who played
Crosby's maid, Mamie) thought.
Jon Parker
----- Original Message -----
From: "parterre box" <parte...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.theatre.musicals,alt.movies.silent
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: Contempt for History 101
> Jon Parker wrote
>
> >He didn't say that. He said that blackface is an obstacle to appreciation
> of
> >Jolson by modern ausdiences. And it is.
>
> Because you say so?
Ok, I'll modify that. It's offensive to anyone with a modicum of respect for
people of color and their place in society.
>
> In fact, this is what the writer said:
>
> "Even if Jolson had been doing great scripts, one big obstacle for modern
> audiences remains: In the theater, Jolson usually wore blackface."
>
> You keep saying "disgusting" and "offensive" without bothering to specify
> *who* was disgusted or offended; in other words assuming that disgust and
> offense are absolute conditions. They're not. In Jolson's time, the
audience
> was neither disgusted nor offended -- no matter what you think they
"should"
> have done.
What part of "modern audiences" don't you understand?
> The other point of contention here is the automatic assumption that
> blackface was automatically "mocking" black people. I don't think it was.
> For Jolson, it was a costume, and the blackface character was a persona.
The
> "obstacle" is a product of a smug modern attitude that we have all the
> answers, and that our morality is the only applicable one in all
situations.
> That's shortsighted, and, dare I to say it, is the real meaning of
> "political correctness" -- we don't approve, therefore no one should ever
> have approved.
Political correctness is an idiotidc straw man set up by people who wish to
justify their own right to prejudice. Whether audiences at the time felt
that Jolson's portrayals were offensive, hopefully we've evolved to the
point where most people would see them that way today.
>
> All your cant about women being chattels is utterly irrelevant. Or should
we
> ban "The Taming of the Shrew" because the denouement includes Katharina's
> speech about the proper (i.e. subservient) place of women in a marital
> relationship?
Who said anything about banning? Where does all this "ban" talk come from?
We're talking about interpretation of historical images.
ApricotRse
attempts, which are loaded with horrifying dialect.<
What about Garland and Rooney?
Jon Parker
Garland and a host of others, did not base their careers in doing blackface.
It's possible to appreciate them while still finding their blackface
routines ridiculous and offensive. With Jolson, there's not much else left.
James Neibaur
jond...@hotmail.com wrote on 5/19/03 9:47 PM:
> It's offensive to anyone with a modicum of respect for
> people of color and their place in society.
I can see where blackface, taken from its historical context, could
certainly be considered offensive. But somehow this sort of thing
eventually snowballs into editing all of the Willie Best footage from
Kentucky Kernels, or keeping the Amos N Andy series from television (I show
the A&A programs in my class of mostly African American students during
Black History Month).
The problem with much political correctness is that it isn't very
discerning. Is The Simpsons offensive because there are black cartoon
characters that are voiced by white people?
JN
Archie Waugh
Jon Parker wrote:
> Political correctness is an idiotidc straw man set up by people who wish to
> justify their own right to prejudice. Whether audiences at the time felt
> that Jolson's portrayals were offensive, hopefully we've evolved to the
> point where most people would see them that way today.
(snip)
> Who said anything about banning? Where does all this "ban" talk come from?
> We're talking about interpretation of historical images.
Jon,
I appreciate your determination, but I just don't think you're going to get
converts here. The general resentment to the article and your defense is simply
a reaction to being told what to think (or worse, how to "feel"). This group on
a regular basis goes through spells of hashing out Birth of a Nation, Leni
Riefenstahl, etc. to great effect, but generally the conversation represents
personal points of view coming from many perspectives. We are delighted to hear
you say you are offended by Jolson; we are not delighted to be told we must feel
the same way. By generally condemning Jolson with a "more moral than thou"
approach, you are damning anyone who finds any value, or God forbid, ENJOYMENT
of Jolson's performances...and by extension Birth of a Nation, Olympiad, etc.
Generally the adults in this group can be assumed to recognize elements in old
film that might offend the thin-skinned, and still appreciate the performances /
filmmaking artistry without wearing their moral revulsion like a hair shirt.
Archie Waugh
Beb11572
>Garland and a host of others, did not base their careers in doing blackface.
>It's possible to appreciate them while still finding their blackface
>routines ridiculous and offensive. With Jolson, there's not much else left.
There is. Jolson spent plenty of time performing out of "blackface." What
about those mediums in which you never saw him at all? There was Al Jolson the
recording artist. Al Jolson the radio star.
With the exception of BIG BOY, Jolson's "blackface" is confined to a few
numbers per film. Throughout most of the running time, he appears without.
He also made films in which he never appeared in blackface at all, namely SAY
IT WITH SONGS and HALLELUJAH, I'M A BUM.
DgSWEET
Crosby and Armstrong were good friends. Crosby admired Armstrong enormously
and sang with him frequently at a time when Crosby was the bigger star. He
used his stardom to bring further attention to Armstrong. There are a lot of
unpleasant things one can say about Crosby, but I've never heard anything but
good things about his relationship with Armstrong.
Jon Parker
general reaction of resentment that people would be offended by Jolson's
portrayals. They are disturbing by modern standards, and they do come across
as showing attitudes that are not the best part of our history. At the time
that Jolson was doing his blackface schtick, the KKK was in a resurgence.
The 20s were not a good time for race relations in in the US, and blackface
shows were a part of that.
Again, I would defend Griffith, and I'm against banning anything. But Jolson
would be largely forgotten today if not for the accident of being chosen to
appear in an early sound film. His contributions to the theater and film are
minor by most critical standards.
People have a right to enjoy what they wish, but Jolson fandom reminds me
less of appreciation for history than of the people who collect Mammy
figurines and coon advertising -- it's less of historical value than a way
to shroud their prejudices with a clloak of historical accuracy. Outrage
over the fact that many people consider this stuff to be offensive comes
across as a defense of bigotry, not of history.
You are correct about not wearing moral reluvsion like a hair shirt, and I
acknowledge coming across like that on occasion. But it is no better to
treat the fact that blackface is considered offensive as if it were a
conspiracy on the part of the "politically correct" to rewrite history.
Jon
P.S. I watched yout video clips and enjoyed them a lot. Your reviewers were
spot on. From what I saw you did a magnificent job.
"Archie Waugh" <glam...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3EC9CBA7...@gte.net...
Shemp
Yada yada yada.....I dunno...I think Jolie was pretty good in
blackface.......
Shemp
Victor Morton
> People have a right to enjoy what they wish, but Jolson fandom reminds me
> less of appreciation for history than of the people who collect Mammy
> figurines and coon advertising -- it's less of historical value than a way
> to shroud their prejudices with a cloak of historical accuracy.
You don't see why a group of Jolson lovers, or silent-film buffs, or film
lovers generally, or even people interested in early-century memorabilia
generally might consider *those* words an offensive statement of prejudices
of other sorts -- self-righteous presentism, motive-imputation, mind-reading
-- and as an attack on them.
How do you *know* that the people about whom your generalizing (based on how
extensive an interview sample, I wonder aloud) *have* such a prejudice to
shroud? What is the epistemological source of the imputation? Or in earthier
terms -- where do you get off saying that?
And let's posit a hypothetical person who has a jones for movies or ads or
music from the turn-of-the-century. What is he supposed to do about the
undoubted fact that many express attitudes on race that are, at a minimum,
very seriously out of fashion today? Is he morally required to give up his
interest tout court? Or if he does retains it, is he morally obliged not to
program / display / collect (whatever verb is appropriate for the given
person) racist works? But if he does choose this route, ten'll get you
twenty some group of racialist mau-mauers will accuse him of trying to
whitewash the past, repress its unsavory features for the sake of
prettifying our past/ the status quo, etc, etc (if you follow contemporary
race politics at all, you can fill in the rest of the script without my
help). The only other logical option is the hairshirt approach.
> Outrage
> over the fact that many people consider this stuff to be offensive comes
> across as a defense of bigotry, not of history.
At a KKK meeting or any other forum where one can be confident that the
people haven't seen any silent movies besides BIRTH OF A NATION, obviously
that's a reasonable inference. But might some other explanation not be
privileged in a newsgroup devoted to silent-film buffs???
> You are correct about not wearing moral reluvsion like a hair shirt, and I
> acknowledge coming across like that on occasion. But it is no better to
> treat the fact that blackface is considered offensive as if it were a
> conspiracy on the part of the "politically correct" to rewrite history.
Depending on the reaction sought (see above), that is certainly one possible
result of projecting blackface complaints backward.
Victor
Brent McKee
"Jon Parker" <jond...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ec996f0$0$52186$45be...@newscene.com...
> The difference, of course, is that Crosby, along with Mickey Rooney
and Judy
> Garland and a host of others, did not base their careers in doing
blackface.
> It's possible to appreciate them while still finding their blackface
> routines ridiculous and offensive. With Jolson, there's not much
else left.
You obviously know little about Al Jolson. Of his major film roles he
appears in blackface on several occassions -- which is to say that not
all of his films have him appearing in blackface -- but of those roles
(with the exception of "Big Boy") he is playing a _white_ performer
who appears in blackface. There is far more to Jolson than "just"
appearing in blackface.
--
Brent McKee
To reply by email, please remove the capital letters (S and N) from
the email address
"If we cease to judge this world, we may find ourselves, very quickly,
in one which is infinitely worse."
- Margaret Atwood
"Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview - nothing more
constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of
openness to novelty. "
- Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002)
Eric Stott
and although it hasn't yet become personal it shows signs that it might.
Eric Stott
Jon Parker
of contention 80 years after the fact. Many of the issues of the era live on
and are still a source of contention within society: the politics of
prosperity, immigration, terroism and a foreign way of life (although
fundamentalist Islam has replaced communism), and a desire for a return to
normalcy.
It certainly won't become personal on my part.
Jon
"Eric Stott" <est...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:3EC9F1AC...@localnet.com...
Jon Parker
seemed to me that he was using Jolson as a jumping off point for ruminations
on the Broadway star system and the dominance of New York in theater.
"Harlett O'Dowd" <chris.c...@worldspan.com> wrote in message
news:6b3e506.03051...@posting.google.com...
Jon Parker
> Jon Parker wrote:
>
> > People have a right to enjoy what they wish, but Jolson fandom reminds
me
> > less of appreciation for history than of the people who collect Mammy
> > figurines and coon advertising -- it's less of historical value than a
way
> > to shroud their prejudices with a cloak of historical accuracy.
That's a generalization to be sure, but I think it's valid. Besides movies,
I collect ugly lamps of the 50s and 60s. In my collection is a lamp that
contains perfectly round mariachis with silly grins on their faces. It's
definitely not a politically correct piece, but it fits into my collection.
However, if I was collecting images that only consisted of racial themes, I
think you'd be quite right in questioning my motives for doing so.
>
> And let's posit a hypothetical person who has a jones for movies or ads or
> music from the turn-of-the-century. What is he supposed to do about the
> undoubted fact that many express attitudes on race that are, at a minimum,
> very seriously out of fashion today? Is he morally required to give up his
> interest tout court? Or if he does retains it, is he morally obliged not
to
> program / display / collect (whatever verb is appropriate for the given
> person) racist works?
I have no idea where you're getting that. I'm constantly amazed at how
people treat any discussion of these topics as an attempt to define what
they are morally entitled to do. However, I think my reaction would be based
on whether or not the collector in question was only interested in racial
pieces or whether they fitted into a larger context. Note that I said "my
reaction." A large part of questioning the motives of those who exhibit a
fascination for this stuff comes from their immediate outrage over the
implication that these kinds of racial images can be disturbing.
>
> At a KKK meeting or any other forum where one can be confident that the
> people haven't seen any silent movies besides BIRTH OF A NATION, obviously
> that's a reasonable inference. But might some other explanation not be
> privileged in a newsgroup devoted to silent-film buffs???
The original piece on which this discussion was based was published in the
LA Times, which isn't dedicated to early film and theater buffs. It showed
no hint of "contempt for history," but that was the immediate reaction.
The other thing that amazes me is that these images are constantly defended
as being intrinsic to the era, and it is posited that we should not be
offended because of this. The URL below will take you to another image that
is also part of the historical record of race relations, and was taken while
Jolson was the toast of Broadway. Are you saying that it should not be
considered offensive? Are you also saying that there is no tie between it
and a social attitude that treats African-Americans as objects of contempt?
http://historyproject.ucdavis.edu/imageapp.php?Major=BA&Minor=H&SlideNum=25.
00
Archie Waugh
Jon Parker wrote:
> I appreciate the reasnableness of your reply. The problem as I see it is a
> general reaction of resentment that people would be offended by Jolson's
> portrayals. They are disturbing by modern standards, and they do come across
> as showing attitudes that are not the best part of our history. At the time
> that Jolson was doing his blackface schtick, the KKK was in a resurgence.
> The 20s were not a good time for race relations in in the US, and blackface
> shows were a part of that.
>
> Again, I would defend Griffith, and I'm against banning anything. But Jolson
> would be largely forgotten today if not for the accident of being chosen to
> appear in an early sound film. His contributions to the theater and film are
> minor by most critical standards.
>
> People have a right to enjoy what they wish, but Jolson fandom reminds me
> less of appreciation for history than of the people who collect Mammy
> figurines and coon advertising -- it's less of historical value than a way
> to shroud their prejudices with a clloak of historical accuracy. Outrage
> over the fact that many people consider this stuff to be offensive comes
> across as a defense of bigotry, not of history.
Here I think you are simply wrong; I had seen a lot of Jolson on tv as a kid,
and very little of what I remember was of him in blackface; you're making it
sound like singing in blackface in an offensive manner is the only thing he did,
and I am sorry, that is not my recollection. My most vivid memory is of Jolson
singing to his Yiddesha mama in Jazz Singer.
> You are correct about not wearing moral reluvsion like a hair shirt, and I
> acknowledge coming across like that on occasion. But it is no better to
> treat the fact that blackface is considered offensive as if it were a
> conspiracy on the part of the "politically correct" to rewrite history.
To me, blackface isn't the issue here so much as expecting us all to
automatically expect us to share your rightious indignation; as I said, while
you may be offended, you simply cannot expect everyone else to be; for one
reason or another, I think it is possible to watch a blackface performance or
yes, even a minstrel show, and see beyond the racial stereotypes that so offend
you, an historically interesting art form that was a major theatrical style in
this country for over 50 years. To me, Mickey & Judy in blackface in the late
1930's is much more cringe-inducing than Jolie in 1927, because it seems
alarmingly self-aware.
> Jon
>
> P.S. I watched yout video clips and enjoyed them a lot. Your reviewers were
> spot on. From what I saw you did a magnificent job.
Very kind of you...tonight's the last show, and I am ready for it to end...it
interfered too much with my participation here!
:-)
Archie Waugh
Harlett O'Dowd
> I still fail to see what in that article led you to this conclusion. It
> seemed to me that he was using Jolson as a jumping off point for ruminations
> on the Broadway star system and the dominance of New York in theater.
> "Harlett O'Dowd" <chris.c...@worldspan.com> wrote in message
> news:6b3e506.03051...@posting.google.com...
The title of the article was:
"Let sleeping eras and their stars lie
As Al Jolson's fans gather, there is much in his legend that should
remain buried."
As others on this thread have written more eloquently than I, instead
of reporting on a convention of fans gathering to celebrate the life
and career of one of the 20th century's greatest stars, this reporter
went off on his own personal diatribe.
I, in turn, went off on mine.
DgSWEET
>would be largely forgotten today if not for the accident of being chosen to
>appear in an early sound film. His contributions to the theater and film are
>minor by most critical standards.
This is an assertion that cannot be proved. An awful lot of people thought he
was among the greatest performers they'd ever seen on a stage, at least as big
a star as Fanny Brice, and Brice was deemed of sufficient moment to sustain a
musical and two movies about her.
Beb11572
There have also been two movies about Jolson (made during his lifetime, no
less) as well as *several* musicals -- although none has come to Broadway as of
yet. And I'm sure we can pretty much figure out why.
Parterrebox
yet. And I'm sure we can pretty much figure out why.
Well, maybe, but on the other hand, who's a huge enough and apt enough
personality to play Jolson without slavishly doing an imitation?
I would also suggest that the facts of Jolson's life do not so easily lend
themselves to a musical theater story line.
Beb11572
>me
>> > less of appreciation for history than of the people who collect Mammy
>> > figurines and coon advertising -- it's less of historical value than a
>way
>> > to shroud their prejudices with a cloak of historical accuracy.
>
>That's a generalization to be sure, but I think it's valid. Besides movies,
>I collect ugly lamps of the 50s and 60s. In my collection is a lamp that
>contains perfectly round mariachis with silly grins on their faces. It's
>definitely not a politically correct piece, but it fits into my collection.
>However, if I was collecting images that only consisted of racial themes, I
>think you'd be quite right in questioning my motives for doing so.
And that is what is so wrong with this entire premise. Your admitted
generalizations stem from the position that the career of Al Jolson "only
consisted of racial themes," and as several of us here are trying to tell you,
it did not. Besides the films and other mediums in which blackface was a moot
point, by the 1940's he had pretty much given it up entirely. He certainly did
not wear it while entertaining the troops in World War II and Korea.
I am, literally, a card-carrying member of the International Al Jolson
Society...and I don't like the blackface act any more than you do. I'm a
Jolson fan because I think the man had a unique, infectious voice and
tremendous magnetism. I like Jolson in spite of the blackface, not because of
it. Those sequences are my least favorite parts of his films. But I'd rather
have Jolson with "warts and all" than no Jolson *at* all.
Having said this, the only number that I consider truly offensive intrinsically
is the "Goin' to Heaven on a Mule" finale from WONDER BAR. But, offensive as
it is, the tone is downright solemn. The tone of Jolson's blackface persona,
as several have pointed out, was the opposite of mockery; it was reverential.
The antics of Stepin Fetchit, an actual black man, were ten thousand times more
loathsome and appalling than anything Al Jolson ever did.
Beb11572
>yet. And I'm sure we can pretty much figure out why.
>
>Well, maybe, but on the other hand, who's a huge enough and apt enough
>personality to play Jolson without slavishly doing an imitation?
Well, the first attempt was in 1979 with Larry Kert (who rather resembled the
other Larry, Parks), entitled AL JOLSON TONIGHT. I didn't see it, but Kert got
tremendous reviews and they all indicated that he did not do a slavish
imitation.
Stephen Mo Hanan did the recent off-Broadway show JOLSON & COMPANY, and -on the
other hand - was a tremendously effective Jolson *because* he resembled him so
much. In fact, he looks so much like Jolson that when he entered, my jaw
dropped.
I didn't see Mike Burstyn or British performer Brian Conley in their respective
Jolson musicals, but they, too, got raves from the critics.
The inevitable "hotspot" is, I'm sure, far more of a problem for a Jolson
musical being produced on Broadway than finding someone who can portray him.
>
>I would also suggest that the facts of Jolson's life do not so easily lend
>themselves to a musical theater story line.
Why not? They were certainly fascinating onscreen.
Parterrebox
>think you'd be quite right in questioning my motives for doing so.
But that's just the point: the Jolson fanciers don't collect racially-themed
images. In fact, I would guess that most of their collectables are sound
recordings, with theater programs running a close second.
Now, if some "Jolson fan's" collection consisted *only* of photos and drawings
of Jolson in blackface, perhaps as part of a larger group of blackface images
of entertainers in general, then maybe you might have reason to be a bit
suspicious.
It does seem that for Jolson, blackface was a type of drag. And as we know,
drag performers can have a whole spectrum of attitudes about the star and
gender they impersonate, from disdain to utter reverence.
Steve Newport
working on a Jolson project.
Re: Contempt for History 101
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Tue, May 20, 2003, 3:17pm (EDT+4)
From: parte...@aol.com (Parterrebox) Who's a huge enough and apt
enough personality to play Jolson?
Steve Newport
having the import of his career minimized by those who don't know any
better. And shrinking Georgie's "import" could be dangeous. Al, I think,
will survive the short-sighted political correctness-- and the idiotic
notion that the term is a "straw man" used for prejudice. Jon Stewart is
right.
Re: Jolson 101 (WAS Re: Contempt for History 101)
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Mon, May 19, 2003, 6:37pm (EDT+4)
From: mDavies_re...@waters.com (Mark S. Davies) And if the
BFS was an irony alert, and I've just pulled an Emily Litella, then "Oh.
Never miiiiind".
Steve Newport
all I meant was-- anytime Crosby did his "I wanna be a hep guy like the
jazzy boys in the band": it was giggle inducing. Not just in HIGH
SOCIETY. He just didn't do it very well. I wasn't referring to "black
dialect" per se.
Re: Contempt for History 101
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Tue, May 20, 2003, 5:19am (EDT+4)
From: dgs...@aol.com (DgSWEET)
<<<Crosby's attempt at hep patois in "Now You Has Jazz" in HIGH SOCIETY
is filled with "horrifying dialect." He didn't need blackface.>>>
------------------------------
Crosby admired Armstrong enormously and sang with him frequently at a
time when Crosby was the bigger star. He used his stardom to bring
further attention to Armstrong. There are a lot of unpleasant things one
can say about Crosby....
Beb11572
NOOOooooo!!
Beb11572
>drag performers can have a whole spectrum of attitudes about the star and
>gender they impersonate, from disdain to utter reverence.
>
To my knowledge, Jolson never performed in drag, although he did sing a few
songs in a female persona, most notably "I'm Just Wild About Harry" (he also
sang at least one song in a child's persona, "Hello Central, Give Me No-Man's
Land").
Beb11572
This "knowledge" that we have of this part of Bing Crosby's life stems from a
"daddy dearest" book written by his son, Gary. All of his sons from that first
marriage were roisterers or worse. I would take all of this stuff with a grain
of salt.
Harlett O'Dowd
In fact it can easily be disproved. Jolson was a HUGE recording star.
Few singers (who were not solely contract artists like Billy Murray)
prior to Crosby waxed as many songs (200+) as Jolie did. He also had
an extensive career in radio and many many of those shows survive and
are treasured by Old time radio enthusiasts.
Frankly, Jolson's film career, while historically important, was far
less important and impressive as his stage, concert, recording and
radio efforts were - and there remain many many more tangible
artifacts of his "more important" projects than his film efforts.
Judging Jolson solely on his film work or blackface appearances is
like judging Harold Lloyd solely on his thrill comedies.
Brent Walker
I read this story originally in the Times and as
wrongheaded/disjointed/unrelated to the Jolson convention/etc. as the
writer's piece is (and it is very much so on all counts), it also
seems like another case where the headline writer (who is usually a
different person than the article writer) made his/her own statement
that didn't necessarily appear in the article itself. As much as the
writer seems to infer it, nowhere in the article does he so
specifically say "Let sleeping eras and their stars lie." Yet because
the headline writer decided to make that his lead headline statement,
the reader is prejudiced with that viewpoint before even starting to
read the very sloppy, disjointed and digressive article.
Brent Walker
Brent Walker
>
> Again, I would defend Griffith, and I'm against banning anything. But Jolson
> would be largely forgotten today if not for the accident of being chosen to
> appear in an early sound film. His contributions to the theater and film are
> minor by most critical standards.
>
I'm not even that huge of an Al Jolson fan (owing more to my personal
taste in singing style than to any supposed "PC" baggage), but this is
an absolutely ridiculous statement. The reason he was chosen to
appear in the first sound film was no "accident"...he was the hugest
star on Broadway at the time! He was enormously popular, and you
might even make the case for him being the very first pop music (and
definitely the first musical theater) superstar. His contributions to
the theater and film...regardless of your personal tastes or
mine...were tremendous. You trot out one of those vague phrases that
music and film critics often use to avoid stating that an opinion is
their own: "by most critical standards." Whose critical standards?
Yours? Then say so.
As for how crucial blackface was to Jolson's act, you've obviously
never seen his best film, HALLELUJAH I'M A BUM, in which he does
absolutely no blackface.
Brent Walker
Bushwhacker
A very good point. As a writer and editor, I've done both (but not
combined). Good headline writing is an art because doing it well
requires accurately capturing an article's point or tone -- which is
often subtle -- in just a few words. When it's not done well, as in this
case, it distorts a reader's perception of the actual article and is
often more inflammatory. Interestingly, most libel suits against
publications stem from headlines rather than articles.
Bill Coleman
nearly as well known as Jolson, but was probably more influential,
and someone to whom Blackface was probably more inportant
to his act, in term of vocal mannerisms, then Jolson. It's the dirty
secret of quite a bit of American "folk" music, both blues and
country, that a lot of it is based on minstrel shows.
Bill Coleman
===============
"Brent Walker" <haub...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b6e233b9.03052...@posting.google.com...
Steve Newport
Re: Contempt for History 101
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Tue, May 20, 2003, 3:26pm (EDT+4)
From: beb1...@aol.com (Beb11572)
The tone of Jolson's blackface persona, as several have pointed out, was
the opposite of mockery; it was reverential. The antics of Stepin
Fetchit, an actual black man, were ten thousand times more loathsome and
appalling than anything Al
Jolson ever did.
Steve Newport
usually condemned by those who haven't seen it.
Re: Contempt for History 101
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Tue, May 20, 2003, 2:53am (EDT+4)
From: jnei...@wi.rr.com (James Neibaur) But somehow this sort of
thing eventually snowballs into keeping the Amos N Andy series from
television (I show the A&A programs in my class of mostly African
American students during Black History Month). The problem with much
political correctness is that it isn't
very discerning.
Steve Newport
Re: Contempt for History 101
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Tue, May 20, 2003, 5:40am (EDT+4)
From: richar...@excite.com (Shemp)
Yada yada yada.....I dunno...I think Jolie was pretty good in
blackface.......
IrisR1
>There have also been two movies about Jolson (made during his lifetime, no
>less) as well as *several* musicals -- although none has come to Broadway as
>of
>yet. And I'm sure we can pretty much figure out why.
I'll bet you can't figure out why!
I was in one of them back in 1979 which starred Larry Kert and Maureen Moore.
The show, had it come in, would have re-lit Larry's candle for sure. We toured
it throughout the summer and it never failed to win remarkably good notices and
standing ovations for Larry (and Maureen) wherever we played.
One of the producers, a bit of a shady character, ran off with the escrow money
and the deposit on the Winter Garden Theater. He used to money to produce a
straight play which was pretty successful. I don't know why he ran, or why he
was one of the original producers - he had been un-trusted from the beginning.
You never know why they don't come in. Cold feet mostly.
However, the show had two 'blackface' scenes and the reviews which I read (and
in those days I read them all -- at least all I could find and that could be
found by the press reps) mentioned the historical accuracy and only one said
that "the blackface sequences, resurrected for the production, may be in
questionable taste for some audiences. . ." (I think it was the St. Louis
Dispatch).
Best,
Larry Raiken
robert armstrong
No, there was also the '91 "Hollow Man" biography by Shepherd and
Slatzer, which drew research from a number of contemporaries who were
still living and quite willing to talk.
I don't agree with every conclusion their book draws, but it's hard to
dispute that Bing virtually abandoned Dixie when she was dying. Another
telling moment is where the authors compare Bing's own conduct to that
of his "roisterer" sons from the first marriage, of whom he'd been so
openly critical.
Bob A
"Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"
Beb11572
I think that was still before blackface was quite the "hot potato" that it is
today. I bet that today, *every* critic would mention it in one way or
another.
DgSWEET
today.
I happen to be ancient enough to know how blackface was viewed in 1979, which
ain't too different from how it is viewed now, or indeed how it was viewed in
1969. Don't imagine that all of the progress in racial sensitivity has been
made in the last 15 minutes.
Steve Newport
Re: Contempt for History 101
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Wed, May 21, 2003, 2:11pm (EDT-1)
From: ElB...@webtv.net (robert armstrong) It's hard to dispute that
Bing Crosby virtually abandoned Dixie when she was dying. Another
telling moment is where the authors compare Bing's own conduct to that
of his "roisterer" sons from the first marriage, of whom he'd been so
openly critical.
Steve Newport
been sending checks to the United Negro College Fund since the 50's and
60's-- if you don't get the words right-- or demonstrate proper,
peer-impressing outrage.
Re: Contempt for History 101
From: dgs...@aol.com (DgSWEET)
made in the last 15 minutes.
Harlett O'Dowd
> And how many of them took their own lives?
Bing got the Mommie Dearest treatment in eldest son Gary’s book
Going My Own Way. Bing’s will stipulates the 4 sons fathered
during his disastrous 22-year marriage to Dixie Lee can’t
collect their inheritance until they’re in their 80s. The score
so far: Dennis and Lindsay committed suicide & Gary died of lung
cancer. Can Phillip hang on another 15-20 years to collect?
Steve Newport
Re: Contempt for History 101
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Thu, May 22, 2003, 5:33am (EDT-3)
From: chris.c...@worldspan.com (Harlett O'Dowd) <<<And how many of
Crosby's sons took their own lives?>>>
----------------------------------
Bing's will stipulates the 4 sons fathered during his disastrous 22-year
marriage to Dixie Lee can't collect their inheritance until they're in
their 80s. The score so far: Dennis and Lindsay committed suicide and
Gary died of lung cancer. Can Phillip hang on another 15-20 years to
collect?
Beb11572
When I was in high school, we did FINIAN'S RAINBOW (1982) -- without one
African American in the cast. Guess what we did for "The Begat" as well as the
Senator? I can't imagine anybody even considering doing that now, much less
getting away with it -- but, come to think of it, even in '82 we were plenty
surprised.
Steve Newport
T-shirt route. BFS.
Re: Contempt for History 101
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Thu, May 22, 2003, 8:17pm (EDT+4)
From: beb1...@aol.com (Beb11572)
When I was in high school, we did FINIAN'S RAINBOW (1982) -- without one
African American in the cast. Guess what we did for "The Begat" as well
as the Senator?
Harlett O'Dowd
> T-shirt route. BFS.
Now why didn't I think of that when I was cast as The Negro in GREASEPAINT?
Beb11572
Steve Newport
Re: Contempt for History 101
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Fri, May 23, 2003, 5:46am (EDT-3)
From: chris.c...@worldspan.com (Harlett O'Dowd) <<< Re: Using
blackface in an all white version of FINIAN'S RAINBOW. "You could have
gone the (original) MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG identifying T-shirt route.">>>
----------------------------------
Now why didn't I think of that when I was cast as The Negro in
GREASEPAINT?
robert armstrong
>his disastrous 22-year marriage to Dixie Lee can't
>collect their inheritance until they're in their 80s.
>The score so far: Dennis and Lindsay committed
>suicide and Gary died of lung cancer. Can Phillip
>hang on another 15-20 years to collect?
Those four sons were financially independent from their twenty-first
birthdays, apparently inheriting from their mother's estate. The fact
that many of them squandered this relative wealth must have given Bing
some pause, even if he was miserly in the first place.
The second family, however, also had some problems dissolving the
"living will". Kathryn could live in their enormous home if she wanted,
but could not sell it because it belonged to the trust. Remember that at
the time Bing died those kids were pretty mature, and on the verge of
leaving home. Why would he leave her in that position, with no control
over the resources she presumably owned?
The weak link was that Bing's property was claimed in this will to have
been separate from any so-called "community property" that his wife
would have shared; Kathryn had never signed any document relinquishing
claim to community property. I figured that the will had successfully
been broken when I saw that Minute Maid had been sold to Coca Cola.
Harlett O'Dowd
> >Bing's will stipulates the 4 sons fathered during
> >his disastrous 22-year marriage to Dixie Lee can't
> >collect their inheritance until they're in their 80s.
> >The score so far: Dennis and Lindsay committed
> >suicide and Gary died of lung cancer. Can Phillip
> >hang on another 15-20 years to collect?
>
> Those four sons were financially independent from their twenty-first
> birthdays, apparently inheriting from their mother's estate. The fact
> that many of them squandered this relative wealth must have given Bing
> some pause, even if he was miserly in the first place.
That would make sense for the proviso in the will. To Bing's credit
he claimed to have gotten marriage and family right the second time
around and by all accounts the second marriage was infinitely more
stable.
Not all of us correct past mistakes when given a second chance.
However, I'm not sure one can state Bing took any great pains to
un-screw the screw ups from his first time round.
Steve Newport
Re: Contempt for History 101
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Fri, May 23, 2003, 1:38pm (EDT+4)
From: beb1...@aol.com (Beb11572)
White T-shirts and black T-shirts?
Bob Birchard
> As for how crucial blackface was to Jolson's act, you've obviously
> never seen his best film, HALLELUJAH I'M A BUM, in which he does
> absolutely no blackface.
It must be remembered that Jolson came out of minstrel shows and was a star before 1906 (he was
appearing in San Francisco during the earthquake). Jolson's stage persona was built on blackface and
before The Jazz Singer, he appeared exclusively in blackface on stage (not like Eddie Cantor who usually
did a blackface number under some pretext--Jolson was in blackface throughout his shows). You can't over
emphasize Jolson's importance--Brent is right about his being the first "pop" singer in that he played
with lyrics and tempo and made his songs personal rather than just anonymous renditions. By the time of
The Jazz Singer, Jolson had been a major star for twenty years, and he really developed in a different
era of show business--but he was widely considered the greatest entertainer of his age, and ranks with
Caruso and John Barrymore as an iconic figure whose importance and influence went well beyond the styles
they developed in their early careers and retained after their first years of success.
--
Bob Birchard
bbir...@earthlink.net
http://www.mdle.com/ClassicFilms/Guest/birchard.htm
robert armstrong
>minstrel shows and was a star before 1906 (he
>was appearing in San Francisco during the earthquake).
>Jolson's stage persona was built on blackface and
>before The Jazz Singer, he appeared exclusively
>John Barrymore...
Hey, Caruso was in San Francisco during the earthquake, and he was
preparing to do blackface in his first Otello right before he died.
Coincidence???