Posted by Axel Nissen on August 14, 2013, 11:51 am
Hello Harpies, I’ll admit there have been times during the past weeks, when I felt your website was aptly named, as I’ve followed the heated discussion about my recently published book THE FILMS OF AGNES MOOREHEAD. When I’ve decided to join the forum, it is in the hope that something positive can come of this experience. There have not been a large number of Moorehead fans involved in the discussion so far, but it is my impression that you are among the most concerned and knowledgeable ones. I want to be clear that your opinions, when fairly, clearly, and rationally expressed, matter to me. I am making myself available now to answer any questions you might have about my study, to clarify a few misunderstandings, and to respond to constructive criticism. Ultimately, I think some of us will just have to “agree to disagree.” I’m equally convinced, though, that I will be able to find common ground with the more thoughtful, open, and reasonable fans among you. In our common interest in the life and career of Agnes Moorehead, we should, logically, have a lot to talk about. With every good wish, Axel Nissen
Then by all means post them here! I may have to follow up with questions about your sources, though. As you know, in a scholarly work I can't use any information without being able to cite a reliable source.
Very good, I will work on this tonight, updating the list to include sources where not already present. Whenever I cannot provide a link to an online source, I'll provide other resource info.
That would be great! I'm particularly curious about that Hedda Hopper column, which indicates, you say, that Moorehead bought the Beverly Hills house in January 1952. My source for 1953 is Charles Tranberg's biography p. 159 and he bases himself on an article dated Aug. 24, 1953 (see note on p. 340). I also would like to know the source for your claim that the QEI portrait predates THE STORY OF MANKIND. I wonder where that painting is now! Any idea? Ditto the one made for THE WOMAN IN WHITE.
Regarding the painting of AM in costume as QE1, it had been in the possession of Debbie Reynolds for many years. I've heard reports that it hung in her private office at her dance studio. She sold it at her December 2011 auction; I do not know who purchased it. The painting was photographed for the auction, posted online and so I was able to see and download it from the auction site. Here it is (I cleaned it up at bit):
In my view, she doesn't look remotely like Frankenstein. [But if I thought so, and I liked her, I would keep that opinion to myself.]
The artist painted another portrait of AM that same year, 1953. I have only a vintage black and white photo of that painting, unfortunately, and do not know what may have happened to that canvas. Here it is:
Why you're a regular oracle! How amazing to be able to see this portrait at last. Am I allowed to say it is not a very good likeness?;-) Joking apart, the comparison with Frankenstein was NOT mine, you will recall, but was made by Mr. Paul Gregory. Thank you for sharing these images. Ms. Reynolds probably bought the portrait in the auction of the contents of the North Roxbury house, I expect.
Point taken. Next time I'll try to include a reproduction of the portrait instead;-), though there would be copyright issues involved, I'm afraid. It would have been interesting to know who bought it. Where there other Moorehead related items in the auction apart from costumes? Reynolds makes a point in her most recent autobiography of having Moorehead's table lamps in her living room, so it appear she kept those!
I've checked the auction catalogs. It looks like the December 2011 auction had just the painting. The prior auction, in June 2011, had some of her film costumes.
Whilst I don't have the scans of these clips on hand the quotes here were supplied by Tamela, a distant cousin of Aggie's:
March 20th, 1952 Hollywood Hedda Hopper: Agnes Moorehead bought the huge home of the late Sigmund Romberg. When a lady buys a house cherchez the soon to be husband. I didn't have to cherchez too far to come up with Bob Gist. July 2nd 1952 Hollywood Louella Parsons: Agnes Moorehead moved into her new home, the Sigmund Romberg House, Saturday. Helping her was the good looking Robert Gist.
Thanks, Clarke, that is very useful and interesting. I know Tamela, so maybe I can get scans of the original articles from her. I haven't come across these articles in Moorehead's copious scrapbooks, surprisingly enough, but they are pretty skimpy (and falling apart!) during this period, which probably explains it.
1) Page xi: ". . .an increasingly successful and busy radio actress, doing as many as six shows a week." In fact, she performed in as many as six shows a day. SOURCE: AM interview with Chuck Schaden in Chicago, 17 June 1971. Oral Interview Written transcript
2) Page 15-16: [Of Lily Miller in Ah Wilderness!] ". . .dependent on her brother and his family for her livelihood." In fact, Lily is employed as a school teacher. Most likely she lives with the family as a social convention since she is still unmarried, as does/is Sid. SOURCE:Bard.org
3) Page 45: "Apart from the Mercury Wonder Show . . . in August 1943 and a performance of King Lear on CBS Radio's Mercury Summer Theater on September 13, 1946, Moorehead never worked with her foremost mentor and Svengali again." In fact, there were additional radio broadcasts together, including several appearances on Orson Welles Radio Almanac throughout Jan-July 1944; 10 April 1945, on The Master of Ballantrae for the CBS Radio series This Is My Best; and the 31 March 1946 broadcast of the Radio Readers Digest episode Back for Christmas. SOURCE: recordings of most of these programs, including their broadcast dates, are available at the Internet Archive: Almanac Part 1 Almanac Part 2 This is My Best For the Radio Reader's Digest episode, the site from which I had obtained the recording is no longer hosting it and it is not available at the Internet Archive: Wellesnet This log lists the episode but mentions only OW, not AM: Program Log I have uploaded my copy of the MP3 file here, from where it may be downloaded (69MB). If you listen, you will hear AM playing OW's wife: Download Here
4) Page 61 quotes lines of dialog from The Seventh Cross, which AM does not speak in the film. SOURCE: Warner Archive DVD release.
5) Page 101: ". . .had Moorehead won any laurels for her performance in The Lost Moment, she should have passed them on to makeup artist Bud Westmore." In fact, Bud Westmore, though credited, did not create the age-makeup appliances. They were made by George Bau, at the request of Bud's brother Perc Westmore. SOURCE: The Makeup Gallery, Page 1 The Makeup Gallery, Page 2
6) Page 108: "Fanny and Lily are both spinsters living with their brothers' families while pining for wedded bliss to men who show no inclination to marry them. . . ." In fact, Sid proposes marriage to Lily repeatedly. SOURCE: Warner Archive DVD release of Summer Holiday.
7) Page 122: "Moorehead was nominated for Best Actress in a Supporting Role in 1949 for the second of four times." In fact, this was her third Oscar nomination. SOURCE:IMDb Awards Page
8) Page 141: [Of her desire to reside in Beverly Hills] "She finally arrived there in 1953. . . ." In fact, newspaper articles of the day put this purchase at early 1952. [Similar statement page 213] SOURCE: Hedda Hopper's column Looking At Hollywood, published 23 February 1952: Download Page Here
9) Page 152: "It turned out to be her last film at Warner Bros." In fact, in 1956 she filmed The Story of Mankind at Warner Brothers, who distributed it. SOURCE:IMDb Page
10) Page 156: "Her well-meaning but ineffectual estranged husband is played by Robert Keith." In fact, Christine and Paul are not estranged, they are divorced. SOURCE: Fourteen Hours DVD released by Fox Film Noir. Also: Wikipedia
11) Page 165: "She. . .escapes costume designer Walter Plunkett's worst excesses in mostly gray dresses." In fact, she wears variously-colored dresses in green, blue, brown-patterned, and red. SOURCE: Showboat DVD, released by TCM.
12) Page 194: "Though she would make several TV movies at Universal in the early 1970s, Agnes Moorehead would make only two feature films there in the course of her career." In fact, The Lost Moment, which was a co-production of Universal and Walter Wanger, was filmed at Universal Studios, which brings the count to three. [Similar statement page 207] SOURCE: -See page 200, which attests to this fact. -Opening credits for film. IMDb Page
13) Page 200: ". . .two other CinemaScope epics that Moorehead would suffer through later: Raintree County and How the West Was One [sic]." In fact, Raintree County was filmed in MGM Camera 65, and How the West Was Won was filmed in Cinerama. SOURCE: IMDb Raintree County IMDb HTWWW
14) Page 200: "Moorehead liked to tell the story of how Lucille Ball. . . ." Unsourced. In fact, it was Lucille Ball who told this story, to author Jim Brochu. SOURCE: Tranberg, page 266.
15) Page 201: "As Aspasia Conti says to Susie Parkington in a line that was omitted from the film, "Ma petite--when a lady is naked it is called 'decollete'." In fact, the line is included in the film. SOURCE: Mrs. Parkinton, Warner Archive DVD release.
16) Page 208: "For what is the woman wearing? Pink, lavender, and orange with a green scarf for contrast!" In fact, Sara is wearing a solid blue outfit with pink and green scarves tied together at the neck. SOURCE: All That Heaven Allows, Criterion DVD release.
17) Page 221: "Moorehead died of uterine cancer, which is caused by a virus and not set off by external, environmental factors." In fact, uterine (endometrial) cancer is not caused by a virus. From mayoclinic.com: "Doctors don't know what causes endometrial cancer. What's known is that something occurs to create a genetic mutation within cells in the endometrium — the lining of the uterus." SOURCE:Mayo Clinic
18) Page 266: "To commemorate this notable role, she had herself painted as Queen Elizabeth." In fact, the painting of AM as QE1 was executed a few years earlier, at the request of the artist. SOURCE: News Article 1 News Article 2 I would venture a guess that, whoever cast the roles played by AM and CR in their scene of "The Story of Mankind" was influenced by these renaissance-style portraits of them.
19) Page 285: ". . .even after Dale is killed on the stairs. . . ." In fact, Dale survives to the end, where she is seen working with Cornelia to complete her new book. The character who is killed on the stairs is Judy. SOURCE: The Bat, which is in public domain: Internet Archive
20) Page 309: ". . .she had resisted the temptation to bob her famously auburn tresses in her youth. As far as we know, she kept her hair long up until that day in 1961. . . ." In fact, as a young woman in her late teens and early twenties, AM wore her hair short, as evidenced throughout her college yearbooks. SOURCE: Muskingum College yearbooks, dated 1921-1924. Samples, as scanned from my books:
21) Page 311: ". . .a wealthy couple perpetually at daggers drawn." In fact, only in the pictured scene. Usually there was a cool, patronizing courtesy between them. SOURCE: Who's Minding the Store DVD, released by Olive Films.
22) Page 336: ". . .Sister Alma at one of her services at 'The Haven of the Open Hand.'" In fact, Sister Alma's place is called The Church of the Open Hand. SOURCE: What's the Matter with Helen? DVD, released by MGM Home Entertainment.
23) Page 344: ". . .where she was at this time building a new home for herself." In fact, the new house was already built by this time. SOURCE: Quint Benedetti, chapter 15.
Good morning PT, Thanks for all the work you have put into compiling this list! Maybe there will be a paperback version of my book in the future and I can make use of these suggestions then. At any rate, this will come in handy in working on my biography, particularly the information about the purchase of the Romberg house and the painting. These internet sources are great, though of course there is nothing like working in the archives in Madison, at the New York Library for the Performing Arts, and elsewhere.
Yes, I have spent months working at the NYPL myself and know that feeling; though so much information is available online and so much easier to access. The best sources for newspaper articles I have found are Google's news archive and newspaperarchive.com. Articles in Google's news archive are sometimes free, sometimes pay-per-view, depending on the newspaper. Newspaperarchive.com used to be free, but now requires a subscription.
I have found that it can be quite difficult to interview people past the age of eighty, as their memories fade and/or become unreliable. This cautions me when I see Paul Gregory as the source of information within the past ten years, particularly on the subject of AM as he may have a little grudge -- back in 1978 he reported that she had owed him a lot of money, which was not repaid. Source: The Milwaukee Sentinel 29 September 1978.
Thanks for the newspaper tip, PT. It's easy to forget that not everything will necessarily be found in the Moorehead papers at the Wisconsin Historical Society, though there certainly are a lot of print materials there. Gossip columns and fan magazines are, of course, notoriously unreliable sources, so whenever possible I like to rely on other types on unpublished and published sources. As for Paul Gregory, don't get me started! It's been one of the great adventures of my life getting to know this fascinating man and a privilege to call him a friend. I don't really feel comfortable in discussing him in a public forum like this, though, especially as he is still very much alive. He will turn 93 on Aug. 27th! I do have a question for you, though, in this connection: Are you suggesting that a biographer should ignore the experiences and opinions of Moorehead's surviving friends, colleagues, and acquaintances if they are not 100% positive in their recollections?
Regarding: Are you suggesting that a biographer should ignore the experiences and opinions of Moorehead's surviving friends, colleagues, and acquaintances if they are not 100% positive in their recollections?
I don't think it's an all-or-nothing question. The judgement and discretion of the interviewer are involved. When I've interviewed people over age eighty, I can generally tell how clear is their recollection, especially when speaking with them as opposed to emailing. And if they tell me something particularly extreme or derogatory, I don't use that item if they are the only source.
Well, I can't see that a person's age alone is reason to disregard any negative experiences or points of view they might want to express. By that logic you should disregard extremely positive, sycophantic or adulatory opinions elderly people might have too. I do agree, though, that any information provided, particularly about events taking places decades ago, needs ideally to be corroborated by other forms of evidence, be it other interviews, archival sources, or the printed record. Again, I'm curious. You seem to be conducting your own research. Aren't you intending to publish some of your findings at some point? It seems to me it would be a useful supplement to the existing scholarship on Moorehead's life and career.
Sorry for the confusion. I did not mean to imply that I would hesitate to use an extreme comment (negative or positive) only from an elderly person. I would hesitate no matter the person's age, really.
Decades-old memories may be better recalled by younger people, in general. Something seems to happen to memory once most people advance beyond their early eighties.
Excellent work in providing your sources, PT. I especially love that you have pictures of Agnes in college with short hair. What a find! Your diligence in researching this subject is amazing.Sow's ears are not made into silk purses by the addition of a few dandelions, Samantha!
I'm actually not entirely convinced that her hair is cut short in these photos. It seems to me that in one or both of them, she might actually be wearing it in a type of loose bun at the back.
Please call me Axel! Otherwise, Dr. Nissen or Professor Nissen would be more correct. How to give a short answer to that question? I don't really think liking comes into it for me. I'm either deeply interested in a subject or I'm not interested. Since I'm in the process of writing two books about Moorehead, I think it's safe to say I'm deeply interested in her.
For your (potential) readers, the impression they receive from your writing is important. Most of us want to read about AM because we like and admire her as an artist and/or as a person. Some of us also care about her memory and her legacy. A book that contains many unkind remarks about her is offensive to us and, we feel, unfair to her. This is one of the main reasons for the negative reviews the book has received so far -- because of its negative tone.
Can you comment on why you have taken this approach?
Edit to add: I don't mean to imply that nothing of a negative nature should be published about AM. She was a human being and as flawed as any of us. Just that there are ways to approach the telling about those sides of her, such as with diplomacy and tact.
Well, to respond directly to that question would imply that I agree with you and a small number of other fans' in your evaluation of my approach, which I don't. I was, in fact, completely taken aback by this response and that explains my initial "pique" in responding to your review. I fear we are never going to agree on what is the appropriate attitude to take in writing a scholarly book on an actor's body of work or a biography, for that matter. I can say, though, that while there are one or two unfortunate remarks (the comparison with Emily Hawkins is one of them) that I would have reconsidered in retrospect, I stand 100% behind my basic scholarly and critical attitude that a book on Moorehead's films must dare to separate the good from the bad, the wheat from the chaff. For many reasons, after 1950 there is unfortunately quite a lot of chaff among the Moorehead wheat! Furthermore, while the viewpoint of fans is important, my book is obviously not exclusively or even primarily written for them. It is intended as a work of reference for anyone interested in some aspect of Moorehead's film career. I think it's safe to say that fans tend to be more sensitive in relation to the "object of their affections" than other types of readers. I don't think I could ever quite have risen to the level of worship and admiration some fans feel for Moorehead, even if I'd wanted to.
I don't mean to imply that nothing of a negative nature should be published about AM. She was a human being and as flawed as any of us. Just that there are ways to approach the telling about those sides of her, such as with diplomacy and tact.
I agree 100% with taking a scholarly, critical approach to the analysis of her work. Just that there are ways to do it. I consider the type of language used in the following examples to be neither scholarly nor professional, but rather unkind and even rude:
=============== -- Page 30: "Certainly Moorehead's French accent, which would show up again in Mrs. Parkington, is disconcertingly reminiscent of 'Allo 'Allo!"
-- Page 50: "Had Moorehead not had her acting talent and vast ambition, she might well have turned into a meddlesome, man-eating divorcee like Emily"
-- Page 83: "Our Vines also offers us the toe-curling spectacle of customarily austere Moorehead massaging liver-lipped screen husband [Edward G.] Robinson's shoulders."
-- Page 89: ". . .Moorehead, for once, is relegated to being little more than a glorified hat stand. [. . .] The hyperelegant countess makes her first entrance in a picture hat in the size and shape of a garbage can lid."
-- Page 97: "The role unified nearly all the qualities that Moorehead uniquely projected on the screen: theatricality, self-dramatization, artificiality, malevolence, sexual rapaciousness and frustration, possessiveness, jealousy, and nosiness."
-- Page 161: [Of Errol Flynn] ". . .we are quite unnecessarily treated to the sight of his sad, sagging tits as he gets a scrubdown from his black manservant.
-- Page 200: "You could feed a multigenerational clan Thanksgiving dinner on the three turkeys that Agnes Moorehead made with Susan Hayward."
-- Page 200: ". . .playing the butch blonde proprietor of a Honolulu 'private club' in the first and the patrician battle-ax in the second would have been signature roles for her in any cinematographic process."
-- Page 207: ". . .St. Oegger had given [Jane] Wyman a severe, unbecomingly short hairstyle with Claudette Colbert bangs that made her look more like a bilious Pekingese than ever."
-- Page 228: "The film starred Grace Kelly, Louis Jourdan, and Alec Guiness, who also played a queen."
-- Page 266: [In reference to a painting of AM] "With the small crowned head atop the hugely dressed body, he [Paul Gregory] thought it looked like Frankenstein."
-- Page 286: "Except for bags under her eyes, she has been served well by the lighting and makeup departments."
-- Page 291: "If you close your eyes during one of her scenes in Pollyanna, it's like hearing Margaret Hamilton as the Wicked Witch of the West! All that's missing in the cackle." ===============
There are more courteous ways to communicate your views. Do you see what I mean?
At the risk of sounding smug and self-satisfied, PT, I have to say that I find most of the bonmots and one-liners you have quoted to be very amusing. And true! They bring a smile to my lips even now! The line about Moorehead and Emily Hawkins is "over the top," I'll admit that, but the other observations I still find both apt and good fun. I love a camp quip and find few things in life so serious that they can't be joked about. Certainly not actors and acting!
I believe this may be the parting of the ways then, Dr. Nissen. Those types of one-liners are not scholarly nor professional. Since you seek to publish scholarly work, this would be a cause of concern. I've done my best to illuminate this. Actors are people too, as are other types of artists. Such 'jokes' at their expense, lampooning them, are in my and others' opinions, distasteful. A touch of humor is welcome, but not this kind.
That would be a shame, PT, as I've been enjoying our dialogue, but naturally I respect your decision and how you choose to spend your time. Equally, you must respect that my books are my own and that nothing is going to change my style of writing and my enjoyment of the process of literary creation. Fortunately, I have my PhD, my many awards, my position as a full professor at Norway's leading university, and my many publications in leading scholarly journals and with fine publishers to assure me that my work is both scholarly and professional. I also have these rousing words from a fine actress and one of the last surviving stars of the 1930s, who clearly has an entirely different view of my writing than you do. This is what Olivia de Havilland wrote in her preface to my first film book ACTRESSES OF A CERTAIN CHARACTER, in which Moorehead was included among the forty actresses profiled and graced the cover: "What is striking about the compilation is that Professor Nissen, a scholar, has written perceptive vignettes in a lively, intimate, and often humorous style. ACTRESSES OF A CERTAIN CHARACTER is not only a wonderful tribute to its subjects, but is also wonderful reading. I found it irresistibly interesting--addictive, in fact." I don't think I need say more to defend my style and it's appeal to many different types of readers.
While that may be true, The Films of Agnes Moorehead book has certainly gone over like a lead balloon in the initial reviews of those who purchased it and for those who have read the "Look Inside" posted on several sites and decided not to order it based on derogatory nature of the quips and the substantial number of errors cited.
The proof will be in the book's sales and reception. I can only hope your next choice of subject bodes more favorably in your own eyes, as I'm sure a lot of time, energy, and expense goes in to writing the books and it would be a shame to alienate the primary audience again.Sow's ears are not made into silk purses by the addition of a few dandelions, Samantha!
It's far too early to make any final judgments about the reception of this book, Melanie. I am confident that THE FILMS OF AGNES MOOREHEAD will stand the test of time and remain the most complete, well researched, well written, and entertaining guide to Moorehead's films available. On the other hand, if anyone thinks they can do a better job, by all means, I would love to see them try!
I've now posted the most important part of our discussion today as a "Q&A" in the forum section of my book's page on amazon, PT. I trust you have no objection to sharing both your and my views with a wider audience than will find them at Harpies Bizarre.
I would not have consented if you had asked me. If it is to be deleted then the whole thing should be deleted, otherwise it is not a Q&A.
If you're going to leave your half anyway, then kindly remove all references to the name "Professional Tourist" and "PT", as well as all of my writing.
Why not? What difference does it make if it appears on amazon, which is no more or less public than "Harpies Bizarre"? I thought we had a good discussion and even though neither of us was able to convince the other, we had a fair exchange of views as long as it lasted. I'm off to bed now. It's early to bed and early to rise for here in Oslo. Why don't you sleep on it? I have no interest in reproducing your views if you no longer want to stand up for them or make them more widely known, but you shall certainly not tell me what I can or cannot publish of my own opinions. Seems to me you've tried enough of that already...
I don't really see this going anywhere good. You should not take someone else's work (in this case their writing and research) and use it for profit (on your book selling page) without their consent. That will get you banned from further discussion.
Let this be a lesson for all to respect other people, on message boards and in real life.
Sow's ears are not made into silk purses by the addition of a few dandelions, Samantha!
Since you do not have my consent, it is important that all references to the name "Professional Tourist" and "PT", as well as all of my writing be removed from the Amazon Q&A you created today, as soon as possible.
Thank you for your prompt attention in this matter Dr. Nissen.
In the list of errata I posted last night, #18 contains two links to newspaper articles on the painting. I've tested both links from two different browsers, and the articles both loaded fine. They are free articles from Google's news archive. If the links don't work for anyone, the articles should come up in a search, which is how I originally found them.
Thank you. I switched browsers and I got it to work. I've spent a lot of time in the Google News Archive but had not stumbled upon these particular articles.
I've seen this photo and Tamela was gracious enough to share it. Though I haven't spoken to her about it recently, I believe she was awaiting verication on this really being Peggy. I was curious whether anyone had a definitive photo or had seen one in researching Agnes.
on August 14, 2013, 11:51 am
