John Gilbert
Scott Cleveland
I have read in books and seen in documantaries that the common reason
for John Gilbert's demise as an actor in sound films was due to a high
voice. All of the Gilbert sound film that I have seen, do not bear
this out. If anything it would semm to be lousy stories or poor
direction (or both). I think his best sound films to be (in no order)
DOWNSTAIRS (1932), QUEEN CHRISTINA (1933), A GENTLEMAN'S FATE (1931),
and FAST WORKERS (1933).
Are there any other good sound performances by him?
I have seen THE BIG PARADE, LA BOHEME, FLESH AND THE DEVIL, and DESERT
NIGHTS. Are there any other Gilbert silents available on video or
cable? I already have TCM, but they have not gone too deep into the
silent films of John Gilbert.
Scott Cleveland
E-mail cor...@primenet.com
Neil Midkiff
In article <5c1i92$r...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> cor...@primenet.com writes:
:I have read in books and seen in documantaries that the common reason
:for John Gilbert's demise as an actor in sound films was due to a high
:voice. All of the Gilbert sound film that I have seen, do not bear
:DOWNSTAIRS (1932), QUEEN CHRISTINA (1933), A GENTLEMAN'S FATE (1931),
:and FAST WORKERS (1933).
: Are there any other good sound performances by him?
You can also hear him in one of the sequences of MGM's _Hollywood
Revue of 1929_, playing Romeo to Norma Shearer's Juliet in two
versions of the Balcony Scene with Lionel Barrymore as the on-screen
"stage director". (Barrymore gets a telegram from the front office
scrapping the original text and directing them to bring the dialogue
up to date--so the second version of the scene is in Jazz Age slang!)
Gilbert has a fine speaking voice, certainly sounding like a tenor
rather than a bass, but not by any means unmanly.
By the way, the scene is in very nice two-strip Technicolor.
-Neil Midkiff
Joel Rane
Scott Cleveland wrote:
> I have read in books and seen in documantaries that the common reason
> for John Gilbert's demise as an actor in sound films was due to a high
> voice. All of the Gilbert sound film that I have seen, do not bear
> DOWNSTAIRS (1932), QUEEN CHRISTINA (1933), A GENTLEMAN'S FATE (1931),
> and FAST WORKERS (1933).
You don't need to dig too deeply to disprove this old yarn. Most of the
silent film stars saw their careers ruined by sound, as the studios saw
an opportunity to take control away from them and create the "studio
system" of the 30s. Of course, then the studios paid the price when
television started to erode them in the 50s. What goes around comes
around.
A very good account of Jack Gilbert's career is found in "Dark Star", a
bio written by his daughter a decade ago.
--
Joel J. Rane
Children's Librarian, Exposition Park/Bethune Regional Branch
Los Angeles Public Library, Los Angeles, California
http://home.earthlink.net/~jsmog/
_______________________________________________________________
"But I am mad about Jose...I honestly think I'd give up smoking if he
asked me."
-- Audrey Hepburn in "Breakfast at Tiffany's"
Opencity
Gilbert's performance in "The Captain Hates the Sea" (1934 Columbia) is
supposed to be his finest sound film. Unfortunately, it is not available
on video and I can't recall ever seeing it on TV. The film was his last
and was considered a serious demotion, as Columbia was a long way down the
road of prestige from MGM.
mayamak
> I have read in books and seen in documantaries that the common reason
> for John Gilbert's demise as an actor in sound films was due to a high
> voice. All of the Gilbert sound film that I have seen, do not bear
> this out. If anything it would semm to be lousy stories or poor
> direction (or both). I think his best sound films to be (in no order)
> DOWNSTAIRS (1932), QUEEN CHRISTINA (1933), A GENTLEMAN'S FATE (1931),
> and FAST WORKERS (1933).
> Are there any other good sound performances by him?
> I have seen THE BIG PARADE, LA BOHEME, FLESH AND THE DEVIL, and DESERT
> NIGHTS. Are there any other Gilbert silents available on video or
> cable? I already have TCM, but they have not gone too deep into the
> silent films of John Gilbert.
>
> Scott Cleveland
I'd like to add something here to this old argument about Gilbert & his
voice: it is true that he by no means had no high-pitched squeak. But
there was still something wrong. Watching him play Romeo in HOLLYWOOD
REVUE he has a voice that is deep but nasal, and I've also noticed, both
in his performance here and in QUEEN CHRISTINA that he seems uncomfortable
speaking lines..unnatural at any rate. THIS could have ended his career,
with or without Mayer's help.
PS: In watching all this stuff on TCM lately, there's something exciting
about these movies made on the cusp as it were, forced to leap from
silents into "soundies", sometimes mid-production. They haven't figured
out the technique yet. There are no rules per se. Anything can
happen, and it shows. "How do you film a musical?" "I don't know, let's
see.." Actors with either no stage experience or who have grown unused to
reading lines are thrown into the act, and either fail abysmally or
triumph surprisingly. I was watching SHOWBOAT the other night, circa
1929, which I've always heard billed as a silent, yet every other sequence
was in sound. It featured an actor playing Gaylord Ravenal who played the
role better than I have ever seen it done--realistically, and not at all
dated, over 60 years later. Who is this guy, and why haven't I ever heard
of him?
A strange way to end this post I know, but I've got nothing left to say..
mayamak
ChaneyFan
>>>I think his best sound films to be (in no order)
DOWNSTAIRS (1932), QUEEN CHRISTINA (1933), A GENTLEMAN'S FATE (1931), and
FAST WORKERS (1933). Are there any other good sound performances by him?
DOWNSTAIRS and QUEEN CHRISTINA are probably his best. I think FAST
WORKERS is a real stinker. Another excellent one is THE PHANTOM OF
PARIS...a role originally intended for Lon Chaney, but he died before the
film got made. But Gilbert made lots of stinkers. So much has been
written about how Louis Mayer tried to ruin his career it doesn't need to
be rehashed here.
=================================================
Jon Mirsalis
Chan...@aol.com
http://www.sri.com/stg/toxicology/jonfilm.html
Lon Chaney Home Page: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan
Scott Cleveland
lmar...@luna.cas.usf.edu (mayamak) wrote:
>mayamak
The actor in question was Joseph Schildkraut. He made several silents
and was a good character actor in sound films. He was in D.W.
Griffith's ORPHANS OF THE STORM (1921), C.B.DEMille's KING OF KINGS
(1927), and was very good in THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER (1939) for
Ernst Lubitsch.
Scott Cleveland
Robert Birchard
Scott Cleveland wrote:
>
> I have read in books and seen in documantaries that the common reason
> for John Gilbert's demise as an actor in sound films was due to a high
> voice. All of the Gilbert sound film that I have seen, do not bear
> this out. If anything it would semm to be lousy stories or poor
> DOWNSTAIRS (1932), QUEEN CHRISTINA (1933), A GENTLEMAN'S FATE (1931),
> and FAST WORKERS (1933).
> Are there any other good sound performances by him?
> NIGHTS. Are there any other Gilbert silents available on video or
> cable? I already have TCM, but they have not gone too deep into the
> silent films of John Gilbert.
>
> Scott Cleveland
Gilbert's strongest sound film, by far, is in Downstairs (M-G-M, 1932),
the story about Gilbert's high-pitched voice is largely a Hollywood myth
that kept being repeated through the years when it was impossible to see
any of Gilbert's talkies for reevaluation.
You have come close to the truth when you mention the poor stories
in most Gilbert talkies. As sound arrived Gilbert was re-signed by
M-G-M for a long term and a huge salary--reported to have been
$250,000.00 per picture. Yet even as the silent era was drawing to a
close Gilbert was starting to slip at the box-office. The Cossacks
(1928), for example, was not a hit.
Gilbert embraced the new medium and was excited about its
possibilities, but his first two talkies were terrible films. His
Glorious Night (Gilbert's second starring sound feature--but the first
to be released) was directed by Lionel Barrymore--and whatever his
talkents as an actor, he was a genuinely terrible filmmaker. His second
to be released (the title escapes me at the moment) was also directed by
Barrymore, though it was largely re-shot and signed by Fred Niblo. By
the time of Way For A Sailor (1930), which is actually not a bad
picture, Gilbert had a string of disappointing box-office outings behind
him. The studio was stuck with his big salary and started skimping on
story, director, and other talent costs in an effort to stem the flow of
red ink, but the weaker production values on these later films tended to
make audiences repond even less favorably than before. The same sort of
thing happened to Richard Bartelmess at First National. Although
Gilbert was not the huge star he was in the silent era, he continued to
work up to the time he died, and was managing to develop a rather solid
sound screen reputation with pictures like Queen Christina, and The
Captain Hates the Sea.
--
Bob Birchard
bbir...@earthlink.net
http://www.mdle.com/ClassicFilms/Guest/birchard.htm
FilmGene
<<As sound arrived Gilbert was re-signed by
M-G-M for a long term and a huge salary--reported to have been
$250,000.00 per picture. Yet even as the silent era was drawing to a
close Gilbert was starting to slip at the box-office. The Cossacks
(1928), for example, was not a hit.>>
Gilbert negotiated that contract directly with Nicholas Schenck in New
York, going over the head of Louis B. Mayer. Mayer detested Gilbert for
that and other reasons. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the
weak stories and other humiliations visited on Gilbert by Mayer were a
deliberate attempt to break the Schenck contract.
Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts - NYC
Phil Posner
Scott Cleveland (cor...@primenet.com) wrote:
He also played the father in DIARY OF ANNE FRANK.
--
Phil
"These are the pitfalls to becoming an actor...Ninety-nine percent
sweat and one percent talent...Oh, and that one percent better
be good." Charlie Chaplin
FilmGene
<<There is no question that after a
certain point Mayer wanted to be out from under Gilbert's contract--but
it is more likely that this was due to financial rather than personal
considerations. After all Gilbert did come back for Queen Christina.
True, Garbo wanted Gilbert, but Mayer could have said no and made it
stick and he didn't do so.>>
I have no doubt that it was both personal and financial. And, don't forget
"Queen Christina" was Garbo's first film in a year after having walked out
of the studio and returned to Sweden. Mayer and MGM were in no position to
buck her wishes. Hell, Olivier had already been given the role. The odds
are Garbo would have walked again.
Scott Cleveland
Jas...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>I have never been able to find a copy of His Glorius Night from 1929
>and Redemption from 1930 Has anyone seen these early John Gilbert
>talkies? Are they available anywhere. Has TCM evcr shown these?
>Thanks
>Jason
I have seen Redemption on TCM. I found it to be a poor film. Its
pacing is way too slow, and some of the dialogue is rather silly.
I believe that this one is actually his first film, but was shelved at
first because it was thought at the time to need reworking. TCM, so
far as I know hasn't shown His Glorious Night yet(I' ve had the
channel for 2 1/2 years). I do hope they show it. I would like to see
more of his talkies to get a better picture(no pun intended) on his
career.
Scott Cleveland
FilmGene
<<I believe this to be a Hollywood myth. I met Rouben Mamoulian in 1978
and
he said that Olivier had been considered for the role, but was thought by
everyone involved to be too young.>>
Olivier was brought here by Metro to play the role. Sounds serious to me.
Gene
David Pierce
Jas...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> I have never been able to find a copy of His Glorius Night from 1929
> and Redemption from 1930 Has anyone seen these early John Gilbert
> talkies? Are they available anywhere. Has TCM evcr shown these?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jason
Unfortunately, although it exists,
we'll probably never see HIS GLORIOUS
NIGHT. The film was based on "Olympia,"
a play by Ferenc Molnar, and was sold
to Paramount for a 1960 remake with Sophia
Loren, titled A BREATH OF SCANDAL.
Paramount donated 35mm material on the film
to the Library of Congress, so the film has
been preserved-- but I doubt that Paramount
has made their own preservation material on
the film or a video master. I wouldn't expect
to see HIS GLORIOUS NIGHT on AMC anytime soon.
David Pierce
Silent Film Sources
Updates and news the first of every month
http://www.cinemaweb.com/silentfilm
The Silent Film Bookshelf
http://www.cinemaweb.com/silentfilm/books.htm
GlennGr
This is an old Hollywood story that accounts for Gilbert's voice problem
in early sound films. Whether it's true or not, I have no idea, but I was
told it by several people who were sure it was gospel: Gilbert went to
his friend Irving Thalberg, MGM producer extraordinaire, to warn him that
his bride-to-be, Norma Shearer, had been a call girl in a posh whorehouse
in NYC. Norma heard about this, and went to her brother, Douglas Shearer,
head of the MGM sound department, who arranged difficulties with Gilbert's
voice. Which wasn't difficult, since, as another poster pointed out,
Gilbert had rather a nasal sound.
I'm inclined to think his friction with Mayer was more responsible for his
problems. And also, his type, the devil-may-care, costume drama sort, was
going out of style in the 30's. Finally, as far as I'm aware, Gilbert
never had an acting lesson, never worked on the stage. So it must have
been difficult for him when sound came in.
- My 2 cents worth/Steon (at someone else's computer)
Bob Tiernan
On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Neil Midkiff wrote:
> Gilbert has a fine speaking voice, certainly sounding like a
> tenor rather than a bass, but not by any means unmanly.
That's right. An example of a weak-voiced male from the silents
who were out of place in talkies was Norm Kerry. Sort of like
a weak Marty Ingals voice, which was not good at that time.
Bob T.
ChaneyFan
Gene Stavis said (in reference to QUEEN CHRISTINA):
>>>Hell, Olivier had already been given the role.
I believe this to be a Hollywood myth. I met Rouben Mamoulian in 1978 and
he said that Olivier had been considered for the role, but was thought by
everyone involved to be too young.
Robert Birchard
mayamak wrote:
> . . . I was watching SHOWBOAT the other night, circa
> 1929, which I've always heard billed as a silent, yet every other sequence
> was in sound. It featured an actor playing Gaylord Ravenal who played the
> role better than I have ever seen it done--realistically, and not at all
> dated, over 60 years later. Who is this guy, and why haven't I ever heard
> of him?
Robert Birchard
Actually, Gilbert grew up in the theatre. His mother was an
actress and he did work on stage as a youngster. The first legend about
Norma and Douglas Shearer can be immediately discounted by the evidence
of our own ears. Gilbert's voice did not record badly at all, and for
Douglas Shearer to have "doctored" Gilbert's voice he would have
affected the voices of others in the scene as well because they were
using single microphones and single channel recording. Also, the EQ
capabilities of production sound mixing consoles in 1929 were virtually
non-existent.
Another thing that argures against the "they were out to ruin him"
theory is Redemption, Gilbert's first talkie. The film was judged to be
weak and was put back into production to try to make it better. It is
doubtful the extra production money would have been spent if the studio
was trying to deliberately ruin his career.
While Gilbert's decking Mayer after the studio head made some
rather rude comments about Greta Garbo does make a good story and has
been often used to support the theory that Gilbert's career was
destroyed by Mayer, there is no reliable evidence to cause one to
believe that the story is true. It may well be that this story is like
the stories about Thomas Ince being shot by William Randolph Hearst and
Paulette Goddard going down on a director under the table in a Hollywood
restaurant--total fabrication without any basis in fact. Several
oldtimers have claimed intimate knowledge of these two stories, and yet
they are absolutely, and irrefutably NOT TRUE.
Scott Cleveland
mg...@interramp.com (Michael Gebert) wrote:
>I think it's pretty clear from the titles of his films that he just didn't
>manage a switch to a successful talkie persona. His Glorious Night,
>Redemption, Gentleman's Fate, The Phantom of Paris-- pardon me while I
>yawn. Compare that with, say, Ronald Colman's first few talkies: Bulldog
>Drummond, Condemned, Raffles, The Devil to Pay; or William Powell's: The
>Canary Murder Case, Pointed Heels, Behind the Make-Up, Street of Chance;
>or, to take a new talkie star, James Cagney's: Sinners' Holiday, Doorway
>to Hell, Other Men's Women, The Millionaire.
>--
While Redemption is not a very good film, A Gentleman's Fate, IMHO has
a good performance by Gilbert. As for the examples of Cagney's work,
he has hardly any screen time in Other Men's Women. His performance is
good, but the movie isn't very good. In The Milloinaire, he has only
one scene in the whole movie. It is a great scene, but hardly a
substantial role like in Doorway To Hell, or Sinner's Holiday , both
good movies. Cagney did not really get featured parts until The Public
Enemy. Becaues of his smaller roles, I don't think he's as good of an
example as Coleman and Powell.
Michael Gebert
I doubt Mayer was trying to ruin an asset like Gilbert.
I doubt he went to any extra effort to save him when he started to slide,
either. That's one of the oldest stories in Hollywood-- use the
troublesome ones while they're hot, but let them sink alone once it starts
to happen.
I think it's pretty clear from the titles of his films that he just didn't
manage a switch to a successful talkie persona. His Glorious Night,
Redemption, Gentleman's Fate, The Phantom of Paris-- pardon me while I
yawn. Compare that with, say, Ronald Colman's first few talkies: Bulldog
Drummond, Condemned, Raffles, The Devil to Pay; or William Powell's: The
Canary Murder Case, Pointed Heels, Behind the Make-Up, Street of Chance;
or, to take a new talkie star, James Cagney's: Sinners' Holiday, Doorway
to Hell, Other Men's Women, The Millionaire.
--
"If your arguments have been rejected by four or more institutions, they do not need any evidence at all to be accepted." --Robert Bly
Seth Schorr
Gilbert's voice may not have been unmanly, but it seemed to not fit the
what one would have expected from a "great lover" type. Try to remember
back to when you first heard his voice after seeing him in the silents.
I remember being just as surprised when I first heard Buster Keaton
speak. Even though his voice didn't fit with what I imagined it would, I
found it acceptable because he was a comedian. The same with Chaplin. I
never thought his voice would sound like that. It was too refined for
the man who played the Little Tramp.
Seth
Seth Schorr
mg...@interramp.com (Michael Gebert) wrote:
>I doubt Mayer was trying to ruin an asset like Gilbert.
>
>I doubt he went to any extra effort to save him when he started to slide,
>either. That's one of the oldest stories in Hollywood-- use the
>troublesome ones while they're hot, but let them sink alone once it starts
>to happen.
>
1. This has been my point of view too. John Gilbert seemed to have a
nasal voice that didn't fit with romantic parts he had played, plus his
acting style was a little to "broad" for the talkies.
2. Like you stated, when your'e on top they love ya. When you start to
slip they wave ya goodbye.
3. I'm sure his personal problems didn't help either.
Seth
Jeremy Bond Shepherd
: That's right. An example of a weak-voiced male from the silents
: who were out of place in talkies was Norm Kerry. Sort of like
: a weak Marty Ingals voice, which was not good at that time.
What films have Kerry in a speaking part? I've created an aural picture of
what he must sound like based on hundreds of screenings of PHANTOM and
HUNCHBACK over the last 20 years. I never bothered to look up whether he
actually did ever speak on film.
-J
--
----------
"Have you never wanted to look beyond the clouds and the stars? Or to know
what causes the trees to bud, and what changes a darkness into light?"
Jeremy Bond Shepherd
San Francisco, California
Internet: jb...@netcom.com
CIS: 71161,736
David Pierce
Robert Birchard wrote:
>
> It may well be that this story is like
> the stories about Thomas Ince being shot by William Randolph Hearst and
> Paulette Goddard going down on a director under the table in a Hollywood
> restaurant--total fabrication without any basis in fact. Several
> oldtimers have claimed intimate knowledge of these two stories, and yet
> they are absolutely, and irrefutably NOT TRUE.
Okay. I'll bite. What is the evidence
either way on the story of Ince's sudden
unexpected death? Ince died under very
suspicious circumstances, and most rumors
have _some_ basis in fact.
Eleanor Ince denied the stories until
her dying day, but she wasn't on the ship.
David Pierce
ChaneyFan
>>> Ince died under very
suspicious circumstances, and most rumors
have _some_ basis in fact.
I had heard that Ince died of pneumonia in L.A. One of my other hobbies
is doing genealogy research, and I know that someone in L.A. can easily go
to the County Records office and for $1.50 get a copy of the death
certificate which will indicate cause of death. I wonder if anyone has
actually done this.
Bob Tiernan
On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, Jeremy Bond Shepherd wrote:
> Bob Tiernan (zu...@teleport.com) wrote:
> : On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Neil Midkiff wrote:
>
> : That's right. An example of a weak-voiced male from the silents
> : who were out of place in talkies was Norm Kerry. Sort of like
> : a weak Marty Ingals voice, which was not good at that time.
>
> What films have Kerry in a speaking part? I've created an aural picture of
> what he must sound like based on hundreds of screenings of PHANTOM and
> HUNCHBACK over the last 20 years. I never bothered to look up whether he
> actually did ever speak on film.
I saw one a few years back in which he played an ex-WWI pilot or
something. Can't remember the name.
Bob T.
Bob Tiernan
On 23 Jan 1997, Scott Cleveland wrote:
> lmar...@luna.cas.usf.edu (mayamak) wrote:
>
>
> >mayamak
> The actor in question was Joseph Schildkraut. He made several silents
> and was a good character actor in sound films. He was in D.W.
> Griffith's ORPHANS OF THE STORM (1921), C.B.DEMille's KING OF KINGS
> (1927), and was very good in THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER (1939) for
> Ernst Lubitsch.
Don't forget - I believe he won best supporting actor in '37 for
"The Life of Emile Zola", in which he played Captain Dreyfus.
Bob T.
Constance Kuriyama
ChaneyFan (chan...@aol.com) writes:
>>>> Ince died under very
> suspicious circumstances, and most rumors
> have _some_ basis in fact.
>
> I had heard that Ince died of pneumonia in L.A. One of my other hobbies
> is doing genealogy research, and I know that someone in L.A. can easily go
> to the County Records office and for $1.50 get a copy of the death
> certificate which will indicate cause of death. I wonder if anyone has
> actually done this.
If they did, and death was ascribed to natural causes, the conspiracy theorists
would only argue that the person recording the cause of death had been bribed.
In cases like this, the rumors are too much fun for people to give them up
without a fight. And of course there is _some_ basis for the rumors. Hearst
was jealous of Marian. He did have a pistol on the yacht.
I'd be satisfied if someone could just offer conclusive evidence that Chaplin
was or wasn't in the party. Even this issue seems impossible to settle.
Connie K.
Phil Posner
Jas...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: On 30 Jan 1997 20:39:34 GMT, do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance
: Kuriyama) wrote:
:
: >I'd be satisfied if someone could just offer conclusive evidence that Chaplin
: >was or wasn't in the party. Even this issue seems impossible to settle.
: >
: >Connie K.
:
: I have no comment
: You are now being ignored
: It already stinks
:
:
:
All -
DNFTEC. Do not feed the energy creature. Besides he's probably only
13 or so, just a kid.
-- Phil
srowe...@aol.com
In article <5cs0vc$9...@milo.vcn.bc.ca>, ppo...@vcn.bc.ca (Phil Posner)
writes:
>Jas...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>: I have no comment
>: You are now being ignored
>: It already stinks
>All -
>
>DNFTEC. Do not feed the energy creature. Besides he's probably only
>13 or so, just a kid.
>
>-- Phil
>
It's best to ignore trolls, but If you must rspond to Jason, please use
this thread. Thanks
Steven Rowe
Tom Moran
srowe...@aol.com writes:
>It's best to ignore trolls, but If you must rspond to Jason, please use
>this thread. Thanks
>Steven Rowe
This is probably a good idea.
But considering that, according to DejaNews, Jason has posted half a
dozen times to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pre-teen, I somehow doubt
that he is someone anyone reading this newsgroup need take seriously --
except perhaps for the authorities.
Tom Moran
Neil Midkiff
In article <5cgk56$d...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> cor...@primenet.com writes:
:While Redemption is not a very good film, A Gentleman's Fate, IMHO has
:a good performance by Gilbert.
Those who get Turner Classic Movies will have a chance to judge
Redemption this month.
Feb. 10 1:45 am EST: La Boheme (1926) Lillian Gish, John Gilbert,
Renee Adoree [Sorry, you'll have to fill in the ` and ' accents yourself!]
Feb. 10 3:30 am EST: Redemption (1930) John Gilbert, Renee Adoree,
Eleanor Boardman
Feb. 10 4:40 am EST: Downstairs (1932) John Gilbert, Virginia Bruce,
Paul Lukas
and
Feb. 13 6:00 pm EST: Love (1927) Greta Garbo, John Gilbert
So we get to see both the silent and the sound sides of Gilbert.
-Neil Midkiff
Robert Birchard
Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>
> ChaneyFan (chan...@aol.com) writes:
> >>>> Ince died under very
> > suspicious circumstances, and most rumors
> > have _some_ basis in fact.
> >
> > I had heard that Ince died of pneumonia in L.A. One of my other hobbies
> > is doing genealogy research, and I know that someone in L.A. can easily go
> > to the County Records office and for $1.50 get a copy of the death
> > certificate which will indicate cause of death. I wonder if anyone has
> > actually done this.
>
> If they did, and death was ascribed to natural causes, the conspiracy theorists
> would only argue that the person recording the cause of death had been bribed.
> In cases like this, the rumors are too much fun for people to give them up
> without a fight. And of course there is _some_ basis for the rumors. Hearst
> was jealous of Marian. He did have a pistol on the yacht.
>
> was or wasn't in the party. Even this issue seems impossible to settle.
>
> Connie K.
Dear Connie,
I understand the frustration with the stories about whether Chaplin
was or was not on the Hearst yacht, but it really is irrelevent because
there was no shooting or stabbing by Hearst, Chaplin, Davies or anyone
else. The whole murder story is a lie in any form--even if it is a
damned persistent one.
All the tales surrounding the supposed murder are bogus as well.
Louella Parsons was not suddenly elevated to columnist status by
Hearst--she was already covering the Hollywood beat and had been
involved with the picture business since George K. Spoor gave her a job
at Essanay in 1915.
Mrs. Ince was not paid off by Hearst, nor was she ever forced by
reduced circumstances into driving a cab. The Ince company--dealing
mostly in story properties and real estate--remained in existence with a
few paid employees into the 1960's.
The earliest documentation I have is a copy of Cecil B. DeMille's
telegram to Adolph Zukor stating that Thomas Ince died at 5:30 this
moring of a heart attack. Roger Casey, an Ince relative, has shown me a
copy of the death certificate. I don't recall the exact cause as
described, but foul play was definitely NOT indicated.
There are numerous afidavits from witnesses as to Ince's condition
on his return home, and before the conspiracy folks ask why there are
all these acounts denying a killing if there was nothing to cover up, it
should be noted that they were made in response to various police
enquiries over a period of years. There is nothing in any of the
various firsthand accounts that would indicate the witnesses were lying
or trying to cover up a murder.
The fact that there are so many witnesses in itself suggests that
the sort of cover-up Hearst is accused of organizing would have been
virtually impossible. In the parlance of the day: "somebody would'a
squealed."
Constance Kuriyama
Robert Birchard (bbir...@earthlink.net) writes:
> Constance Kuriyama wrote:
>>
>> ChaneyFan (chan...@aol.com) writes:
>> >>>> Ince died under very
>> > suspicious circumstances, and most rumors
>> > have _some_ basis in fact.
>> >
>> > I had heard that Ince died of pneumonia in L.A. One of my other hobbies
>> > is doing genealogy research, and I know that someone in L.A. can easily go
>> > to the County Records office and for $1.50 get a copy of the death
>> > certificate which will indicate cause of death. I wonder if anyone has
>> > actually done this.
>>
>> If they did, and death was ascribed to natural causes, the conspiracy theorists
>> would only argue that the person recording the cause of death had been bribed.
>> In cases like this, the rumors are too much fun for people to give them up
>> without a fight. And of course there is _some_ basis for the rumors. Hearst
>> was jealous of Marian. He did have a pistol on the yacht.
>>
>> I'd be satisfied if someone could just offer conclusive evidence that Chaplin
>> was or wasn't in the party. Even this issue seems impossible to settle.
> The earliest documentation I have is a copy of Cecil B. DeMille's
> telegram to Adolph Zukor stating that Thomas Ince died at 5:30 this
> moring of a heart attack.
Do you know the date of it offhand? How long after the yacht returned to shore did
Ince die?
Roger Casey, an Ince relative, has shown me a
> copy of the death certificate. I don't recall the exact cause as
> described, but foul play was definitely NOT indicated.
One would think that the Ince family, who were far from powerless, would not
have been inclined to let Hearst get away with murder.
> There are numerous afidavits from witnesses as to Ince's condition
> on his return home, and before the conspiracy folks ask why there are
> all these acounts denying a killing if there was nothing to cover up, it
> should be noted that they were made in response to various police
> enquiries over a period of years. There is nothing in any of the
> various firsthand accounts that would indicate the witnesses were lying
> or trying to cover up a murder.
But why the police inquiries? Because of the rumors?
> The fact that there are so many witnesses in itself suggests that
> the sort of cover-up Hearst is accused of organizing would have been
> virtually impossible. In the parlance of the day: "somebody would'a
> squealed."
Chaplin has been accused of lying because he denied being on the yacht.
He has also been accused of lying about other things, but on further investigation
has been proven correct. The issue does have some bearing on his credibility as
an autobiographer. I can see little reason for concluding that he was lying, since
he could have concocted any number of plausible stories. And since he often was
on Hearst's yacht and was close to MD, it is easy to see how the rumor originated.
Connie K.
mayamak
In article <32F8B9...@earthlink.net>, Robert Birchard
<bbir...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> There are numerous afidavits from witnesses as to Ince's condition
> on his return home, and before the conspiracy folks ask why there are
> all these acounts denying a killing if there was nothing to cover up, it
> should be noted that they were made in response to various police
> enquiries over a period of years. There is nothing in any of the
> various firsthand accounts that would indicate the witnesses were lying
> or trying to cover up a murder.
>
> The fact that there are so many witnesses in itself suggests that
> the sort of cover-up Hearst is accused of organizing would have been
> virtually impossible. In the parlance of the day: "somebody would'a
> squealed."
> --
> Bob Birchard
..on Hearst? Who could have afforded to take that kind of chance?
mayamak
Robert Birchard
This is the rationale for those who still believe a murder
occurred--however, recent history has shown us that it is almost
impossible to keep a secret if more than one person knows the truth.
Hearst had as many enemies as friends--the enemies were almost
certainly responsible for the accusations and they would no doubt have
pushed them to their logical conclusion if there had been any evidence
of a murder.
The most compelling evidence to me is the Ince family itself. For
years Ince's wife and son (who were both at TI's bedside when he
died)tried to refute the murder tale--but nobody wanted to hear them.
What motive could they have possibly had to keep quiet about the murder
of husband and father? Especially after Hearst's death?
Ince's granddaughter (daughter of TI, Jr.) continues this lonely
crusade of trying to put the rumors to rest. Ince's grand nephew, a
long-time persoanl friend of mine, also denies that TI was murdered. He
heard all the family stories from his grandfather, John Ince, and there
is no question in his mind that TI died of natural causes.
Bruce Long
Robert Birchard <bbir...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>...The most compelling evidence to me is the Ince family itself. For
>died)tried to refute the murder tale--but nobody wanted to hear them.
>What motive could they have possibly had to keep quiet about the murder
>of husband and father? Especially after Hearst's death?
I agree. But there are also accounts like the following one, from the
autobiography of Frank Bartholomew, who was the head of the United Press
office in Los Angeles at the time (he eventually became head of United
Press International):
"What I considered my biggest story in Los Angeles was the mysterious
death of Thomas Ince, the famous producer. The story began with a
radiogram from a private yacht cruising just off the Southern California
coast, which disclosed that the president of Thomas Ince Studios had
sustained a fatal accident. We started to check a report that he had been
struck on the head with a bottle. Bit by bit, it developed that
William Randolph Hearst was on board.
"The Los Angeles Times and the Daily News sent advance echelons of
reporters and photographers south, hoping to find where the yacht would
land the body. Hearst's Examiner and Herald each tried to bottle up
the news. Actually the yacht landed at Oceanside, to be met
by a special Santa Fe train. It started out so quickly that the body
was hoisted through a car window. In Los Angeles a mortician cremated the
body without an official permit, despite vigorous protests. Then
the yacht's crew disappeared, apparently all over the Pacific. In this
case, the blockade proved more effective than the combined efforts of the
press to get the facts. It was, actually, a super cover-up of some sort."
Bruce Long
GlennGr
Motive: The Ince family was supported by Hearst for years after TI's
death.
GlennGr
Wasn't his servant Kono on the yacht, and didn't he report seeing a bullet
wound in Ince's head? And what would Kono be doing on the yacht if
Chaplin wasn't there?
Constance Kuriyama
The trouble with this reminiscence is that it takes it for granted that
Ince was dead when the yacht landed, but this was evidently untrue.
Furthermore if all these special arrangements were made (needless to say
without informing the press), then who witnessed the events this fellow
so confidently describes? Who is his source?
Furthermore, his story is not consistent with the story another poster
brings up, which has it that Chaplin's valet Kono saw Ince being brought
off the yacht on a stretcher with a head wound--presumably still alive.
And this story makes no mention of a special train being there, or of the
yacht landing at Oceanside. Etc., etc.
Frankly, I don't consider journalists--regardless of the positions they
may rise to--particularly reliable. The surest place to go for misinfor-
mation about Hollywood in the 'twenties is the newspapers.
Connie K.
Constance Kuriyama
GlenGr writes: "Wasn't his [Chaplin's] servant Kono on the yacht, and
didn't he report seeing a bullet wound in Ince's head? And what would
Kono be doing on the Yacht if Chaplin weren't there."
I used to wonder about this, but there are serious problems with this story
as well.
First of all, Kono wasn't on the yacht. He was there when it docked to
pick someone up--or so the story goes.
Who would he pick up if not Chaplin, you ask? Quite possibly Marion Davies.
Kono often ferried Chaplin's friends around as well as Chaplin himself.
One way of assessing the reliability of a story is to follow its tracks.
This story did not come directly from Kono but from Eleanor Boardman, who
got it from her servants, who got it from Chaplin's servants, who said Kono
had told them this. In other words, at best this is third-generation hearsay.
Kono is an interesting figure in Chaplin's life, and he did provide some of
the information to Gerith von Ulm for her book _Charlie Chaplin, King of
Tragedy_. However, my husband and I have the impression that Kono is not a
totally reliable source. He has a definite tendency to cast himself in dramatic
roles when recalling some incidents--claiming, for example, that he
discovered Virginia Cherill, which is not at all what both Cherill and Chaplin
recalled about her discovery. This is the kind of story Kono might concoct to
impress his fellow servants after reading some of the gossip in the papers.
I doubt that we can believe a word of it.
However, some versions of the story claim that Ince first suffered from a
perforated ulcer, and that this was probably the source of the blood on his
face.
As for the claim that Hearst supported the Ince family, how do you know this
is true? Have you personally done an audit of their family finances since 1924?
While movie folk sometimes look richer than they are, I have the impression
that Ince made plenty of money and probably left his family well provided for.
Connie K.
Robert Birchard
Dear Bruce,
Frank Bartholomew's account sounds compelling until you get down to
the most basic fact. There was no body taken off Hearst's yacht. Ince
was alive (if not well) when he was taken off the boat. He was on a
stretcher when carried to the train. It was simply easier to pass the
stretcher through the train window than to try to negotiate turning it
into the aisle from the door at the end of the car.
Ince was alive when he arrived home. His wife and son were at his
bedside when he died three days later.
The rumors of fowl play began to circulte several days after his
death, and apparently were prompted by the observation of a porter on
the train that there was blood on Ince's chest. Apparently he spit up
some blood.
The police conducted an investigation and found no evidence to
support the murder story. When the rumors re-surfaced in the 1940's the
police contacted a number of the principals and again found no evidence
to suggest fowl play.
If you have seen late pictures of Ince he looked to be in frail
health and looked more like 74 than the 44 years he was.
Robert Birchard
GlennGr wrote:
>
> Motive: The Ince family was supported by Hearst for years after TI's
> death.
These stories are not true. The Ince family has consistently denied
them. Hearst lost most of his fortune in the '29 stock market crash,
and was in no position to support a vast cover-up conspiracy.