Reconstructing American Historical Cinema: From Cimarron to Citizen Kane 9780813124063, 9780813171470, 0813124069, 0813192390, 9780813192390
In Reconstructing American Historical Cinema: From Cimarron to Citizen Kane, J. E. Smyth dramatically departs from the t
295 70 4MB
English Pages 462 Year 2006
Recommend Papers
![The Story of Cinema: An Illustrated History, Vol. 2: From Citizen Kane to the Present Day [2, 1 ed.]
0340282592, 9780340282595](https://ebin.pub/img/200x200/the-story-of-cinema-an-illustrated-history-vol-2-from-citizen-kane-to-the-present-day-2-1nbsped-0340282592-9780340282595.jpg)
File loading please wait...
Citation preview
ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
This page intentionally left blank
RECONSTRUCTING American Historical Cinema
FromCimarrontoCitizenKane
J.E.Smyth
THEUNIVERSITYPRESSOFKENTUCKY
Publicationofthisvolumewasmadepossibleinpartbyagrant fromtheNationalEndowmentfortheHumanities. Copyright©2006byTheUniversityPressofKentucky ScholarlypublisherfortheCommonwealth, servingBellarmineUniversity,BereaCollege,CentreCollegeofKentucky, EasternKentuckyUniversity,TheFilsonHistoricalSociety,GeorgetownCollege, KentuckyHistoricalSociety,KentuckyStateUniversity,MoreheadStateUniversity, MurrayStateUniversity,NorthernKentuckyUniversity,TransylvaniaUniversity, UniversityofKentucky,UniversityofLouisville,andWesternKentuckyUniversity. Allrightsreserved. EditorialandSalesOffices:TheUniversityPressofKentucky 663SouthLimestoneStreet,Lexington,Kentucky40508-4008 www.kentuckypress.com 10 09 08 07 06 5 4 3 2 1 LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData Smyth,J.E.,1977ReconstructingAmericanhistoricalcinema:fromCimarrontoCitizenKane/J.E. Smyth. p.cm. Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex. ISBN-13:978-0-8131-2406-3(alk.paper) ISBN-10:0-8131-2406-9(alk.paper) 1.Historicalfilms--UnitedStates--Historyandcriticism.2.Motionpicturesandhistory. I.Title. PN1995.9.H5S572006 791.43’658--dc222006020064 Thisbookisprintedonacid-freerecycledpapermeetingtherequirementsofthe AmericanNationalStandardforPermanenceinPaperforPrintedLibraryMaterials. ManufacturedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica. MemberoftheAssociationof AmericanUniversityPresses
For Evelyn M. Smyth and Peter B. Smyth and for K. H. and C. G. You might say that we grew up together.
This page intentionally left blank
There’salotofwordswehaven’tcoveredyet.Forinstance,doyou knowwhatthismeans,“I’llgetyouontheAmeche”?Ofcoursenot!An Amecheisthetelephone,onaccountofheinventedit....Like,you know,inthemovies. —SugarpussO’Shea(BarbaraStanwyck) inBallofFire,1941
This page intentionally left blank
Contents ListofIllustrations...xi Acknowledgments...xiii Introduction:TowardaFilmicWritingofHistory inClassicalHollywood...1 One:TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory 1.
TheNewAmericanHistory:Cimarron,1931...27 2. ContemporaryHistoryintheAgeofScarface,1932...57
Two:ResolvingWestwardExpansion 3. CompetingFrontiers,1933–1938...89 4. TheReturnofOurEpicAmerica,1938–1941...115 Three:CivilWarandReconstruction 5. JezebelsandRebels,CavaliersandCompromise,1930–1939...141 6. TheLivesandDeathsofAbrahamLincoln,1930–1941...167 Four:VeteransofDifferentWars 7. WarintheRoaringTwenties,1932–1939...197 8. TheLastoftheLongHunters,1938–1941...225 Five:HollywoodHistory 9. StarsBornandLost,1932–1937...251 10. AHollywoodCavalcade,1939–1942...279 Conclusion:FromLandofLibertytotheDeclineandFall ofCitizenKane...307 Appendixes...341 Notes...367 SelectedBibliography...413 Index...435
This page intentionally left blank
Illustrations Cimarron’smultiethnic,racial,andgenderedWest...36 Estabrook’sprojectedtexttitles...38 Awhitemerchant-pioneertellstheIndianstogetout...39 Estabrook’sannotatedcopyofCimarron...40 Thevulture’seyeview...43 Sabra’sfrontierrhetoricelicitsasadsmilefromYancey...46 LeBaron,Ree,andEstabrookreceiveAcademyAwards...50 DarrylF.ZanuckatWarnerBrothers,ca.1930...58 Ricoalterstheclock...64 Small-timecrookRicoreadstheheadlinesforDiamondPete...67 LittleCaesarmakestheheadlines...67 Ricocheckshispresscoverage...67 EstablishingtheperiodinThePublicEnemy,1931...69 DocumentaryshotsofChicago:StateStreet...70 TheUnionStockyards...70 Warisdeclared,butTomandMattareoblivious...70 Mummifyingthegangster...72 AlCaponehandlesthecommissioner...75 WhokilledBigJimin1920?...79 Courting“press-tige”...79 Writinghistorywithanewinstrument—themachinegun...79 HappyValentine’sDayfromTonyCamonte...81 MaeWestinSheDoneHimWrong,1933...94 TextforewordforTheLastoftheMohicans,1936...101 TwentiethCentury–Foxresearchlibrary,ca.1939...102 DeMille’shistoricalstaffinthelate1930s...109 Close-upofGeronimo...123 ThefinalchaseinStagecoach...124 OpeningcreditsofThePlainsman...132 Julieandhermaidshareasimilartasteindresses...155 Thecolorofthedressisred,butwhatisthecoloroftheheroine?...157 Juliesingswith“herchildren”...157 Thepoliticsofraceanddress...159 xi
xii Illustrations
ScarlettandtheSouthriseagain...161 Theoath...161 “Reconstructed”southernwoman...161 Trotti’sforewordforYoungMr.Lincoln,1939...177 Anuncertainhero’sfirstspeech...180 MasteringBlackstone’sCommentariesandthecommonlawsofPoor Richard’sAlmanac...184 RaymondMassey’sswearingin...190 Trayfullofpawnedwarmedals...200 TheGreatWarsplitsthecoupleinTheStoryofVernonandIreneCastle, 1939...214 GingerRogersasIreneFooteCastleinPatria...215 Overdeterminedimages...219 MarkHellinger’smodernhistory...220 SergeantYorkreadsTheHistoryoftheUnitedStates...232 AlvinYork:atwentieth-centuryLincoln...232 Revisitingold“texts”:theDanielBooneconnection...233 ClaraBowinCallHerSavage,1932...252 DavidO.Selznickwithhisfather,LewisJ.Selznick...253 AStarIsBorn:introducingthe“text”...270 JohnGilbertandGretaGarboinQueenChristina,1933...271 JeanHarlow’smemorialatGrauman’sChineseTheatre...273 JohnBowers,ca.1924...275 EsthertriessteppingintoNormanMaine’sfootsteps...276 Estherisstoppedinhertracksbythepast...276 NormanMaine’sslab...276 Facingcustardpiesfromthepast...292 Openingshot:someoneelsepresentsGeorgeM.Cohan...302 IndependenceDay,1878...302 Remembering“OverThere”...302 RememberingtheGreatWar...328 Kane’sdeclaration...329 The“vault”oftheThatcherlibrary...330 ThompsonreadsThatcher’sjournal...331 ReadingfromthetextofhistorytothecinematicWest...332 Historicalcompletionand“theUnionforever”...332
Acknowledgments Many people assisted in the shaping and production of this book, but none of it would have been possible without the help and patience of dozensoffilmarchivistsandlibrarians.MythankstothestaffatIndiana University’s Lilly Library, the University of Southern California’s Cinema-TelevisionLibraryandWarnerBrothersArchive,theWarnerBrothers CorporateArchive,UCLA’sArtsLibrarySpecialCollectionsandSpecial Collections, Yale University, the Huntington Library, Brigham Young University,BostonUniversity,theHarryRansomResearchCenteratthe University of Texas, and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.IamespeciallygratefultoLeithAdams,JamesD’Arc,LaurenBuisson,J.C.Johnson,andJennyRomero.Butaboveall,Iwanttothankthe invaluableNedComstock,NoelleCarter,andBarbaraHall. Yale University, the Huntington Library, and Indiana University all supportedthisprojectwithgenerousgrantsandfellowships. IwanttothankDudleyAndrew,CharlesMusser,MichaelDenning, andAlanTrachtenbergfortheirhelpwhenthisprojectwasemergingasa doctoraldissertationatYale.MycolleaguesandstudentsattheUniversity ofWarwickprovidedmewithanewforumformyideas,andIamgrateful fortheirsupportandfriendship.DavidCulbert,PeterRollins,andRobert A.Rosenstonepublishedmyearlywritingsonhistoryandfilm,andsome ofthatworkhasbecomepartofthisbook.RobertwitnessedmyfirstchallengetomainstreamAmericanhistoriography,andI’llalwaysbegrateful forhisrigorouseditingandunflaggingenthusiasmforLamarTrottiand DarrylF.Zanuck.Iamdeeplyindebtedtomyeditor,LeilaSalisbury,for skillfullyguidingthisprojecttocompletion. SomeofthepleasantestdaysofmylifewerespentdiscussingCecil B.DeMillewithMickeyandPatrickMoore.I’llalwaysrememberthem withaffectionandawe.NoelTaylorisanotherwhomademymanyvisits toLosAngelesunforgettable.ButIowefiveladiesdebtsfortheirsupport andkindness,whichIhopesomedaytorepay,ifonlyinpart:Oliviade Havilland,KatharineHepburn,MarshaHunt,AnnRutherford,andJanet Leigh.And,asalways,mylovetoEvelyn,Peter,Rose,andLillie. xiii
This page intentionally left blank
Introduction
TowardaFilmicWritingof HistoryinClassicalHollywood Webelievethatwehaveasmuchrighttopresentthefactsofhistoryaswe seethem...asaGuizot,aBancroft,aFerrari,oraWoodrowWilsonhas towritethesefactsinhishistory. —D.W.Griffith,TheRiseandFallofFreeSpeechinAmerica,1916
WhenD.W.Griffithpublishedhisdefenseofhistoricalfilmmakingin 1916, there was little doubt why he believed that filmmaker-historians neededaspokesman.PubliccontroversyhadyettosubsideoverhisCivil War and Reconstruction epic The Birth of a Nation (1915). Although Griffith had already filmed eleven southern period pictures, including TheHonorofHisFamily(1909),HisTrust(1910),andTheBattle(1911), hehadneverbeforemadesuchlengthy,complex,andcontroversialuseof Americanhistory.Griffith’sdecisiontoventureintomajorAmericanhistoricalfilmmakingwasundoubtedlypromptedbythesuccessofThomas Ince’sTheBattleofGettysburg(1913),releasedonthefiftiethanniversary ofthatengagement.1However,GriffithnotonlyscriptedtheheroicsacrificesofConfederateandFederalsoldiersandthenationalreconciliation ofAbrahamLincoln’sleadership;healsopursuedAmericanhistoryinto thepostwarera.ThesecondhalfofTheBirthofaNationwasanadaptationofThomasDixon’sReconstructionnovelTheClansman(1905). Griffith’s choice to film one of the most racially transfiguring and sociallycontestedperiodsinnationalhistoryfromwhatmanyofhiscontemporariesconsideredablatantlyracist,whitesouthernperspectiveout1
2 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
raged much of black and white America.2 Even before its release, the NationalAssociationfortheAdvancementofColoredPeople(NAACP) campaignedtosuppressandcensorthefilm,andafteritsrelease,critics accusedGriffithof“capitalizingracehatred”andofmakingan“aggressivelyviciousanddefamatory”film.3Curiously,oneofhismostprominentcritics,FrancisHackettoftheNewRepublic,feltthattheprojected text“titles”wereasoffensiveandincendiaryasthemostviolentimages ofblacksattackingwhitewomenandprofaningtheSenatechamberand ofKlansmenridingtotherescue“indefenseoftheirAryanbirthright.” “Myobjectiontothedrama,”hewrote,“isbasedpartlyonthetendency ofthepicturesbutmainlyoftheprintedlinesIhavequoted.Theeffect oftheselines,reinforcedbyadroitquotationsfromWoodrowWilsonand repeatedassurancesofimpartialityandgoodwill,istoarouseintheaudienceastrongsenseoftheevilpossibilitiesoftheNegroandtheextreme proprietyandgodlinessoftheKuKluxKlan.”4 MovingPictureWorld’sW.StephenBushalsonoticedthatthefilm’s “controversialspirit”was“especiallyobviousinthetitles.”5Griffithhad chosentointensifythehistoricaldiscourseofhisfilmwithprojectedtext. Intertitles,thoughderivativeofearlyslidelecturersandonstagenarration ofnonfictionfilms,introducedtheuniquecombinationofprojectedtext andimages;Griffith’shistorical“narrative”fusedtwoseeminglydistinct discourses on screen. But his text did not simply give continuity to the visualnarrativeorcompoundthehistoricalprestigeassociatedwithCivil Warcinema;itprovidedhistoricaldetailandargumentsaboutslaveryand Reconstructionthatwerelightningrodsfornationalcontroversy. HavingtowatchaCivilWarandReconstructionfilmthatwasattimes reminiscent of Mathew Brady’s poignant photography was one experience,buthavingtoreadafilm’shistoricalperspectiveinterspacedwith WoodrowWilson’sHistoryoftheAmericanPeoplewasanother.6Griffith’s images and text forced the audience to take sides. When the directorscreenwriterdefendedhisfilm,hetooktheoffensive,claiming,however erroneously, that the entire narrative was “authenticated history.”7 AlthoughscholarshavesincepointedoutthatAfricanAmericansdidnot overrunCongressorthesenatesofsouthernstatesduringReconstruction andthattheKlanservedpurposesotherthankeepingblackpeopleunder control,8Griffithwasinterestedinprojectingafinalimageofwhitesolidarity.ShowingabrasiveYankeesannexingoldplantationlandsandovertaxingtheimpoverishedinhabitantswouldnothavehelpedhisvisionof whiteunityanymorethanimagesofKlansmengoingaftercarpetbaggers andwhiteFederalsoldierswouldhave.“History”mayhavetranslatedas
Introduction 3
conflicttoGriffith,buttheunresolvedstrugglebetweenwhiteandblack AmericansovershadowedtheCivilWarheroicsoftheCameronsandthe Stonemans. AlthoughGriffithunderstoodthattraditionalwritersofhistorywere influenced by their own personal view of the past, and that objectivity was difficult to achieve, he asserted repeatedly that The Birth of a Nationwas“accurate”andmoreobjectivethanpreviouswrittenhistoriesof theera.ActressLillianGishwouldrecallGriffithjustifyingtheelaborate productioninorder“totellthetruthabouttheWarbetweentheStates. Ithasn’tbeentoldaccuratelyinhistorybooks.Onlythewinningsidein awarevergetstotellitsstory.”9Ashistorianshavesincepointedout,the initially polarized and polemical early histories of the war were supersededbymassiveattemptsatconciliationthatavoidedovertly“northern” or“southern”perspectives.10Butbythefirsttwodecadesofthetwentieth century,historianssuchasUlrichPhillipswerelayingthefoundationsfor theriseofwhitesouthernhistory.Griffithwaspartofalargerrevisionist movementbentonreclaimingaregionalhistoricalperspectiveinCivil WarandReconstructiondiscourse. Griffithattributedhiscapacityforhistoricalobjectivitytohisstatus asafilmmaker.Shortlyafterthefilm’sreleaseinApril1915,hewasinterviewedbyRichardBarryintheEditorandpredictedthatfilmmakers would eventually replace writers as historians. In his imagined film library,“Therewillbenoopinionsexpressed.Youwillmerelybepresent atthemakingofhistory.Alltheworkofwriting,revising,collating,and reproducingwillhavebeencarefullyattendedtobyacorpsofrecognized experts,andyouwillhavereceivedavividandcompleteexpression.”11 Griffith had an almost pristine faith in the camera’s exceptional status asaninterpretivetoolofhistory,itsrecordingapparatusprovidingfilmmakers with advantages in objectivity that traditional writers of history lacked.Butthefollowingyear,hisperspectiveinTheRiseandFallofFree SpeechinAmericachanged,focusinginsteadonthecontinuitiesbetween historicalfilmmakingandtraditionalhistoriography.Whatpromptedthis new outlook? Perhaps the censorship storm overThe Birth of a Nation hadchastenedhim.WhatismorelikelyisthatGriffithrecognizedthat hispowerasadirectorandhistorianwasvestedinhisinterpretationof history.Merelyrecordingfactsfromthepastwasdocumentation;theprojectionofhistoryinvolvedactiveengagementwithhistoricalevidence.12 Filmmakershadeveryrighttobehistorians,hewrote,andto“presentthe factsofhistoryasweseethem.” Although late-twentieth-century film historians have dismissed
4 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
Griffith’sviewofhistoryasasimple,pernicious,butpotentnationalmyth influencedbythetriumphantchauvinismofGeorgeBancroft,theWhiggishequationofhistoryandprogress,andviolentracism,13GriffithhimselfembracedtheconnectionwithBancroftandtheAmericanhistorical tradition. Bancroft, the premier American historian of the nineteenth century,wasascholarpossessingbothacademicandpopularrespect.14 Griffith’sclaimofprofessionaltieswashiswayoflegitimizingfilmmakingasapowerfulformofhistoriographyin1916.15AlthoughTheBirthof a Nation endorsed national unity and strength through clearly defined racial and cultural conflicts, Griffith compromised Bancroft’s historical trajectoryofinevitableprogressanddevelopment.Afterall,TheBirthofa Nationisamonumenttothehistoricalcrisisofwaranddisunion.Griffith wasdrivenbytwocompetinghistoricalvisionsofAmerica:thereassuring,triumphantnationalismintonedbyBancroft,andhisowndesireto contradict,tocorrect,andtonarratetheSouth’sstruggleagainstnorthern “progress,”makingahistoryofrebellionandoppositiontothetraditionallyconstruedforcesofhistorythecentralnarrativeofnineteenth-century America.Hisfilmdidmorethansimplyrecordordocumenthistorywith thecamera’scapacityforreenactedrealism. Althoughfilmgoersandcriticshadlongbeenastoundedbycinema’s capacitytorecordeventsinthepresent,PresidentWoodrowWilsonwas the most prominent spectator to recognize Griffith as an intermediary betweenAmericanhistoryand1915America,remarkingthatTheBirthof aNationwas“historywritteninlightning.”16Griffithagreed,seeinghimselfandhispeersashistorians,andclaimedthat“themotionpictureisat leastonaparwiththespokenandwrittenword.”17Morethananyother filmmakerofhisgeneration,heexploitedcinema’spotentialtowriteand rewrite the text of American history, to compete with and even exceed thescope,complexity,andaudienceoftraditionalwritingsaboutthepast. Historical cinema was more than a recording apparatus, an instrument of reenactment, or the passive handmaiden of historical writing. By allyinghimselfpubliclywiththegreatwritersofhistoryandabsorbingthe discourseandiconographyofhistoriographythroughprojectedtextand documents,Griffithprovedthatfilmmakingcouldengagetraditionalhistoricaldiscourseonfundamentalandmultivalentlevels.Griffithoffered thepossibilityofafilmic“writing”ofAmericanhistory. But when filmmakers chose to become historiographers—literally, “writersofhistory,”whetherinink,incelluloid,orinlightning—Griffith foundthattheywereoftensubjecttoprofessionalhistorians’contemptand publiccontroversy.TheBirthofaNationsetthestandardforHollywood’s
Introduction 5
futurehistoricalwork(thepreliminaryresearchandthepublicizedifcontestedclaimstohistoricalauthenticity;theadaptationofthediscourseof traditionalhistoriographythroughprojectedtextinserts,documents,and historicalcharacters;thetransformationofaperiodnovelintoamorehistoricallyassertivefilm,linkingfictionalprotagoniststovisuallyandtextuallydocumentedhistoricalevents;themassivecost;thepublicadulation andoutrage),yetfewfilmmakersdaredorwantedtoequalitsmammoth costandpubliccontroversy.Instead,from1916to1927,Americanhistoricalfeaturefilmmakingbecameaprestigiousbutonlyoccasionalpart ofHollywood’sA-featureoutput.Thisranged,inthesilentperiod,from biographies (Davy Crockett, 1916; The Dramatic Life of Abraham Lincoln,1924)toreenactmentsoffamouseventsinhistory(America,1924; The Iron Horse, 1924; Old Ironsides, 1926) to adaptations of historical novels(TheLastoftheMohicans,1920;TheScarletLetter,1926)tomore modernhistoricalevents(TheBigParade,1925;TheRoughRiders,1927). UnlikeAmericanattemptsatnarratingEuropeanhistory(Orphansofthe Storm,1922;TheSeaHawk,1924;ThePatriot,1928),thesefilms,regardless of star power, attracted a larger and more informed national audience,particularlywesternssuchasTheCoveredWagon(1923)andwar epics such as The Birth of a Nation. Critics such as Robert Sherwood didnotrhapsodizeaboutlavishsetsandcostumesbutquarreledwithor praised the filmmakers’ narrative choices and presentation of historical eventsandconflicts.18 Althoughmanyofthesefilmswereextremelypopularandattracted criticalpraise,19theywereonlyasmallpartofHollywood’sannualoutput. Atthistime,studioresearchdepartmentsweretiny,andtheirdutiesdid notaffectthecontentofscreenplays.Instead,directorslikeGriffithoften dictatedthehistoricalscript,whichrevolvedaroundwell-knownhistoricalevents(TheRoughRiders)orpeople(TheDramaticLifeofAbraham Lincoln) or general historical periods (The Covered Wagon). After the publicreactiontoGriffith’sracisthistoricalpositioninTheBirthofaNation,thesefilmsmorecautiouslycelebratednavalvictoriesoverBritain andfreelancepirates,courageouspioneers,wartimeheroics,andsaintly presidents.PotentiallycriticalnarrativessuchasParamount’sVanishing American(1925)wereveryrare,andthescenesofgovernmentabuseof Native Americans were tempered by the noble Navaho hero’s decision toenterWorldWarIandassimilateasapatriot.20Theuseoftextinserts insilentAmericanhistoricalfilmsmainlypraisednationalachievements andnoteddatesandlocales.Inspiteofthenecessityforintertitlesand projectedtext,screenwritershadlittlepowerwhenitcametochoosing
6 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
historical material and constructing the narratives. Although directors JamesCruzeandGeorgeB.SeitzdidnotachieveGriffith’stotalauthorialcontrolovertheirscripts,screenwritersduringthesilenterawerenot accordedrecognitionorrespectasthewritersoffilmedhistory.21 With the advent of sound, what had been an occasional expensive practicebecametheindustry’smostinnovative,prestigious,andcontroversial form of feature filmmaking. American historical features were a significantchunkoftheA-featureoutputfromRKO,Paramount,Warner Brothers,MGM,andlaterTwentiethCentury–Foxfrom1930to1941, andby1939–1940theyeasilyoutnumberedanyothergenreorcycle.22 Filmmakersfocusedmoreexclusivelyonthenationalpast,andresearch libraries,historicalexperts,originalscreenplays,publicitycampaigns,and critical attention became part of the craft of American historical filmmaking. Suddenly Hollywood’s greatest need was capable writers. New producerssuchasDarrylF.ZanuckandDavidO.Selznickbegantowork closelywithteamsofwritersandresearchersonindividualfilmprojects.23 Screenwritersreadbothtraditionalandrevisionisthistoriography,reevaluatedacceptedinterpretationsandarguments,andoftenpursuedmodern orpopularsubjectsignoredbyhistorians.Originalscreenplayscompeted with adaptations of history, biography, and old press headlines. Silent AmericanperiodfilmssuchasRamona(1910,1916,1928)andTheLast oftheMohicans(1909,1920)wereremadewithgreaterhistoricalattention.Historicalnovelswerescriptedwithprominenthistoricalintertitles, documents,andreenactmentsunknownintheoriginalfiction. During the 1930s, the most respected screenwriters were even allowed to develop and complete their own historical projects without significantstudiointerference.TwentiethCentury–FoxmogulDarrylF. ZanuckhadstartedhiscareeratWarnerBrothersasalowlyhackwriter churning out dozens of treatments (including the Rin Tin Tin series); asheadofhisownstudio,heallowedhiswritersmoreautonomyinthe selectionandday-to-daydevelopmentoffilmprojects.Writerswerepaid betteratFox,too.In1938TwentiethCentury–Fox’stopsalariesbelonged toShirleyTemple($110,000)andscreenwriter-producerNunnallyJohnson($100,000).24Incontrast,MGMgaveitswriterstheleastpowerand opportunitytodeveloporiginalscripts;inspiteofitswealth,thestudio did not pioneer films about American history, as did the smaller RKO, orconsistentlydominatethecycleinthe1930s,asdidWarnerBrothers, Paramount,andTwentiethCentury–Fox.25ButMGMwasadeptatappropriatingotherstudios’historicalinnovations.Forexample,in1937it hiredEdwardG.RobinsontostarinTheLastGangster;boththetitleand
Introduction 7
thestarevokedmemoriesofthecontroversialhistoricalgangstercycleZanuckhadhelpedcreateatWarnerBrothersintheearly1930s.However, MGM’sfilmwassafefiction.NewYorkTimesfilmcriticFrankS.Nugent, mindfulofWarnerBrothers’high-profilehistoricalandbiographicalproductions, wrote, “Had Warners been doing it, it would have read: ‘Mr. EdwardG.RobinsoninTheLifeoftheLastGangster.’”26Beginningin theearlysoundera,WarnerBrothersbecameoneofthemostprominent producersofhistoricalcinema.Aspartofitsconstantsearchforhistorical novelties,forgottenevents,andcontemporaryhistoricalfigures,thestudio alsodevelopedoneofthemostimpressiveandwell-publicizedresearch librariesinCalifornia.Itshead,Dr.HermanLissauer,notonlyadvisedon majorfeaturesbutalsohelpedcreateWarner’sAcademyAward–winning educational shorts Give Me Liberty (1936), The Man without a Country(1937),TheDeclarationofIndependence(1938),andSonsofLiberty (1939). The advent of sound coincided with and even fostered the rise of thestudioresearchlibraries,butithadthegreatestimpactontheroleof thehistoricalscreenwriter.Soundfilmsenabledscreenwriterstoliterally “write”ahistoricalfilm,andforthefirsttimesinceGriffith’scommentary in1915–1916,thewordgainedascendancyinfilmproduction.Zanuck’s dictum“Putitinwriting,”inscribedonthestudiostationeryatWarner Brothers and Twentieth Century–Fox, applied to every aspect of film productionbuthaditsgreatestresonancewiththeemergingAmerican historicalfilmsthatheproduced.Sound’stransformationoffilmproductionarguablyaffectedhistoricalfilmmakingmorethananyotherfeature filmgenreorcycle,butparadoxically,thesenewsound-erascreenwriters owedtheirmostobviousstructuraldebttothemechanicsofsilentfilmmaking.Projectedwordsdidnotdisappearwiththeintroductionoftalkingpictures.Althoughsoundhadrenderedintertitlesandprojectedtext obsolete,historicalfilmsretainedandembellishedtheirtextualcontent asameansoflendingtheirnarrativeshistoricalcredibilityandprestige. Historicalforewordsintroducedtheirsubjects,datespunctuatedthenarratives,andtextinserts“chapterized”thesenewfilmtexts.Inanageof mesmerizing screen images, the use of text deliberately drew attention totheconstructednatureofthefilm.Audiencessawneitherunmediated realitynorseamlessstudiofantasies,butratherimagesorganizedbythe wordsofnewHollywoodhistorians.Beginningin1930andcontinuing foradozenyears,theHollywoodstudiosreleasedanunprecedentednumberofthesefilms,andfilmmakers,critics,andaudiencesrespondedtothe industry’spursuitofAmericanhistory.27
8 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
TheMythofClassicalCinema Althoughthefilmsdiscussedhereallfallwithinthecriticalboundaries oftheperiodknowntoacademeas“classicalHollywood”(roughly1920 to 1960), the term classical Hollywood cinema and its critical heritage have seriously constricted previous historical scholarship on pre–World WarIIHollywoodfilmmaking.ThetermoriginallysignifiedFrenchfilm criticAndréBazin’spraiseforabeautifullybalancedstageofAmerican film narratives, a moment in the late 1930s when the visual structures and seamless continuity of Hollywood film production were blended withanoverpoweringnarrativeunity.28Overthenextthirtyyears,professionalfilmhistoriansandtheoristsrecastBazin’sappreciationforprewar aestheticbalanceandnarrativeresolutionwithanoverdoseofeconomic determinism.Accordingtothisview,aidedbytotalizingstructuralistand post-structuralistdiscoursesonfilmlanguageandahistoricalpsychoanalytictheoriesabouttheideologicalfunctionofthefilmapparatus,studioeraHollywoodwasamassiveindustrialmachineproducingastandardized cinema that supported the nation’s overarching capitalist ideology.29 In addition,HortensePowdermaker’s1950studyoftheHollywood“dream factory” inspired film theorists and historians to decipher and describe the“mythicdiscourse”ofclassicalHollywoodcinema.30TheHollywood system’sgenreformulas,binarynarrativesystemofgoodandevil,conflict andresolution,fixeddramaticpatterns,hiddenandinsidiousideological apparatus,passivespectator,andresolutionofdominantnationalideologyareallrecognizedastrademarksofmyth.31 TraditionalviewsofHollywoodgenrepresentedbyRobertWarshow andWillWrightclaimedthatclassicalHollywoodgenresconsistentlyresolvedtimelessconflictswithinfixeddramaticpatterns.32Morerecently, RickAltmanattemptedtoreplacethetraditionaltranshistoricalconcept offilmgenrewithamorehistoricallyspecificapproach,butmostcriticism overthepastthirtyyearshasintonedclassicalHollywood’sunconscious reflectionofdominantideologiesandthemonolithofclassicalHollywood genre.33Occasionalanomaliesinthegenrewereconsideredjustthat—occasional—and they were often attributed to a maverick director-auteur. Good films were made in spite of the system and in spite of producers, although film historians Thomas Schatz and George Custen did much torestoreIrvingThalberg’s,DavidO.Selznick’s,andDarrylF.Zanuck’s reputationsastheauthenticgeniusesoftheHollywoodsystem.34 InTheClassicalHollywoodCinema(1985),leadingfilmscholarsDavid Bordwell, Kristin Thompson, and Janet Staiger reinforced the con-
Introduction 9
ceptoftheHollywoodsystemasneverbefore.InmeasuringHollywood’s slowandpredictablechangeasaformofindustrialandstylisticadaptation,theyconcludedthatmoneyandtechnologywerethesupremecatalysts of Hollywood cinema.35 The mammoth structure of mainstream filmmakingeasilyovercamepotentialidiosyncrasies,andalthoughsubjectmatterandcharacterizationreflectedcontemporarytrendsandculturalbeliefs,Bordwell,Thompson,andStaigercreatedaHollywoodthat grewwithinanenclosed,deeplystructuredworldoutsidetheboundaries ofAmericanhistoryandculture.Infact,onemightarguethatintheiraccount,thewordsclassicalandmythicareinterchangeable.TheBordwell- Thompson-StaigerformulahasledfilmscholarMiriamHansentocharge Bordwell (and his methodology of neo-formalist poetics and cognitive psychology)withusingthetermclassicismtotranscendhistory,enabling a mythic, totalizing, and reductive view of Hollywood production and style.36Curiously,Bordwell’sformulationofclassicalHollywoodresemblesthestructuralist–post-structuralistaccountsofthe1970sthatheallegedlyintendedtorevise.AlthoughHansen’s“historicizing”ofclassical HollywoodcinemaexaminedHollywood’spotentialformodernisminits representation and dissemination of the conditions of modernity rather thaninfilms’capacityfornarrativecritiqueandstylisticinnovation,her interventioniscrucialinrecoveringahistoricallynuancedunderstanding ofHollywoodfilmpracticeinthe1930s. Certainlytherewerequotaquickies,serials,predictablegenres,fantasy, glamour, and narrative formulas that producers and screenwriters couldeasilyadaptandcommunicatetocarefullymeasuredtargetaudiences. But the seemingly transhistorical, mythic discourse of classical Hollywoodgenrecannotbeappliedtohistoricalfilmmaking,wherethe subject matter deliberately reached beyond the borders of the film industry,contemporaryculture,andDepression-eraaudiences.Perhapsthis is why so few film historians have bothered to look closely at the productionanddiscourseofhistoricalfilmsfromtheclassicalera.37Rather thanfollowingthepatternsofmyth,dissolvinghistoricalspecificitywithin symbolsandresolvingallculturalcontradictionsinareassuringnarrative pattern,Americanhistoricalfilmsinparticularhadtoberesponsibleon somelevelforthingsbeyondtheconsiderationofagoodstory. Thedevelopingiconographyofhistoricalcinemadepartedfromthe seamlesscontinuityandinsularityofclassicnarrative.Frequenttext inserts literally separated viewers from the visual narrative, offering a disjunctive visual experience that forced them to read as well as see and hear. Although in the late 1920s, Sergei Eisenstein and other Russian
10 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
filmmakershopedthatsoundwouldobliteratethe“uncinematic”useof intertitles,38morerecently,filmtheoristPascalBonitzerpraisedtheuse of projected text in late 1960s documentaries as a means of distancing theaudiencefromthetotalizingideologicalpowersofthevoice-overnarrator.The“fragmentary,discontinuous”presenceoftextonscreen“appealstothe‘consciousness’”andcreatesadirectmeansofinterrogating what an audience sees and hears.39 Although Bonitzer was referring to post-1968documentaries,theuseoftextinclassicalHollywoodhistory filmsdrawsfilmsoutsidetheconfinesofEisenstein’s“cinematic”essence and Bordwell-Thompson-Staiger’s conception of Hollywood narratives. ThetextofAmericanhistoryhadotherconventionsandanomaliesthat, wheninterpretedthroughfilm,alteredthebasiciconographyandnarrativepracticesoftheHollywoodcinema. Althoughbothtraditionalhistoriographyandfilmproductiondepend onnarrativeform,thewritingofhistoryinvolvesargument,evidence,and multipleperspectives—thingsthatareofteninconflictwithHollywood studios’needtogetfilmsmadeonscheduleandwithinbudget.Throughoutthisperiod,filmmakersaddedmajorhistoricaleventstoadaptations ofperiodnovelslikespectaculardigressions;close-upsofhistoricaldocuments competed with close-ups of the protagonists. Although contemporaneous critics appreciated the spectacles of massive battles, balls, andconventionsandthedetailsofletters,newspapers,andgovernment documents, others would point out that these historical concerns overwhelmedtraditionalfictionfilmnarratives.40Historyoftenhadajarring wayofbreakingtheseamlesscontinuityofprotagonist-drivennarratives. Thepresenceoftext,spectacles,andcompetingnarrativesofhistorywere disjunctive,eye-popping,anddistractinglycomplex.Onemightevenbe temptedtotermhistoryastheultimatecinematicattraction,fracturing the traditional sense of a good film narrative that tells its story quickly and clearly.41 But these films are not variations of the counternarrative tradition that Tom Gunning noticed in early “historical” attractions of thesilentera;instead,theypresentanexcessofnarratives:thefictional, filmicnarrativeandthehistoricalnarrative.Hollywoodfilmmakers’adaptation of historical discourse resulted in a foregrounding of style and iconographytoadegreeunknowninothergenres(text,documentinserts, historicaldigressions),anditgeneratedhistoricalnarrativesthatfractured theinsularworldoffictionalfilm.Insteadofmaskingthetracesofhistory, these classical Hollywood historical films showed the evidence of theirownhistoricalconstruction,andeventhemostspectacularimages of the past did not obey the formulas of narrative and continuity edit-
Introduction 11
ingenumeratedbyBordwellandothers.AndalthoughmanyAmerican historicalfilmsreliedonheroicfictionalprotagonistsandepicstruggles toformtheirnarratives,Hollywood’seclecticandchallengingcollection ofhistoricalfactsandfacesdidnotnecessarilysupportanassembly-line historicalargument. ManyoftheseAmericanhistoricalfilmsalsoblurredthedivisionbetweenfictionanddocumentarycinemacodifiedinthe1930sbyfilmmakerandcriticPaulRotha.42FilmssuchasThePublicEnemy(1931),The WorldMovesOn(1934),TheRoaringTwenties(1939),andCitizenKane (1941)alluseddocumentaryfootagetosharpenthehistoricalcontextof theirnarratives.Severalyearslater,DarrylZanuckwouldusefeaturefictionfilmsashistoricalevidence,appendingoldfootagefromJesseJames (1939)andTheJazzSinger(1927)toTheReturnofFrankJames(1940) andHollywoodCavalcade(1939)asameansoflegitimizinghismostrecenthistoricalproductions.Inalmosteverycase,thesepastimageswere inscribedwithinthenarrativesbyprojectedwrittenhistoricalcommentary.InCitizenKane,theoralnarrationofthe“documentary”Newson theMarchissupersededbythepowerofthetextintheThatcherLibrary sequence.TakingacuefromBonitzer’sworkontextversusvoiceindocumentaries,onecouldarguethatHollywoodhistoricalfilms’appropriation ofthemoreambivalenttextualdiscourse(alsothehallmarkofhistoriography)ratherthanthemoreideologicallydeterminingvoice-oversacrificed theauthorityofonevoiceforagreaternarrativecomplexity.ButAmericanhistoricalfilms’mostbasicconnectionwithdocumentarycinemalay inasharedsenseofauthenticity.Insimplestterms,thecinema’sillusion of movement and researchers’ and screenwriters’ painstaking efforts at detailedverisimilitudemadeAmericanhistory“live”again.Nevertheless, despitetheirhistoricalcontentandsimilariconography(text,voice-overs, documentinserts,andthelike),allhistoricalfilms,sincetheyare“reenactments,”havebeenclassifiedas“fiction.”43Writtenhistoryisitselfan exerciseinanalyticalreenactment,butfewhistorianswouldcountenance beinglabeledfictionwriters.
TheBurdenofHistoricalandFilmScholarship ProfessionalhistorianshaverarelyadmittedthepossibilitythatHollywood filmscouldserveasanewandcomparableformofhistoriography.When historianMichaelIsenbergreadGriffith’sdefenseoffilmmaker-historians, he ignored both Griffith’s call for equality among traditional historians andfilmmaker-historiansandhisunderlyingchallengeofhistoricalob-
12 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
jectivity,insteaddismissingGriffithasmerelyfeeling“theburdenofthe truthsofhistory.”ForIsenbergandcountlessotherhistorians,filmmakers couldneverachievethestatusoftruehistoriansbecauseof“thenecessary oversimplicityofthecinematicapproachtohistory,coupledwiththedesirefordramaticeffect,”whichhasledto“agrossoveremphasisonGreat MenandGreatEvents.”44AccordingtoIsenberg,Hollywood’sviewofthe pastwasnotonlyhopelesslyinaccuratebutalsocompromisedbyanotiose approachtohistoriography,onethatstressedanineteenth-centuryviewof grandioseprogressandhistoricalchangedependentontheactionsofa fewremarkablepeople.45Althoughcontemporaryprofessionalhistorians likeIsenbergweretheguardiansofobjectivityand“real”history,when theywerenotworkingonserioushistory,theywouldoccasionallydeign tolookatfilmsasinterestinghistoricalartifacts. Since the 1960s, the work of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Michel de Certeau, and Hayden White has subjected the ideal of historical objectivity to a massive interdisciplinary assault. In recent years, evenprofessionalhistorianshaverealizedthefallibilityofrevisedgrand narrativesandhaveturnedtheirattentiontohistoriesofrace,ethnicity, gender,andsexuality.Butcuriously,post-structuralismwasnotAmerica’s firsttasteofhistoricalcritiqueanddoubt.FrederickJacksonTurner,arguably America’s most influential academic historian, acknowledged that nohistoriancouldpreventcontemporaryconcernsfromaffectinghisor herhistoricalperspective.Inhis1891essay“TheSignificanceofHistory,” heinsisted,“Eachagewritesthehistoryofthepastanewwithreferenceto the conditions uppermost in its own time.”46 During the late 1920s and early 1930s, Turner’s student Carl Becker and others, such as Charles Beard,exploredthedarkerimplicationsofTurner’sinherentlychanging historiography. Relativism, founded on the instability and impossibility ofattainingthe“objective”ideal,wasparticularlyprevalentintheyears followingtheGreatWarandoftenfoundfullestexpressioninrevisionist historiesthatcriticizedthemesofnationaltriumphandprogressinherent intraditional,positivistAmericanhistoriography.47In1931,inhisaddress to the American Historical Association, Becker argued that history was notaperfectlytranscribedrealitybutthehistorian’s“imaginativereconstructionofvanishedevents.”AccordingtoBecker,professionalhistorians had no monopoly on objectivity and truth; the process of researching, revising, and reconstructing the historical past through documents and analysiswasonethattheaverageAmerican,Mr.Everyman,wentthrough onadailybasis.Historicalinterpretationwasnotaritualknownandpracticed by the chosen few, and in the postwar era, popular history—“the
Introduction 13
historyofMr.Everyman”—wasfarmorepowerfulthananythingheand hiscolleagueswouldwrite.48Beckeralsorecognizedthatintheageofthe modernmassmedia,Mr.Everymannolongerformulatedhishistorical interpretationsfrombooksalonebutalsofromnewspapers,advertising, radioprograms,andfilms. Although Allan Nevins was no relativist, he too was frustrated with academichistorians’inabilitytoreachapublicaudience.In1939hedevelopedastrandofBecker’sargumentbutaddressedamorepublicaudience than the American Historical Association. His query, “What’s the Matter with History?” appeared in the Saturday Review of Literature.49 Nevins knewthathispopularapostasywouldangerhis colleagues, but intheeightyearssinceBecker’saddress,Nevinsperceivednochangein theprofessionalhistorian’sapproachtothepast.Infact,hedrewattention tothefissurebetweenpopularbiographyandserious,“scientific”history andcastigatedprofessionalhistoriansfortheirintoleranceofotherforms ofhistoriography.Thisintolerancewasresultinginanotabledropinthe audiencefor“serious”worksofhistory.AccordingtoNevins,“Vitality,in history as in every other field of letters, means variety.” Unlike Becker, Nevins’smethodologicaldiversityappliedonlytowrittenhistoriesanddid notsuggestthepotentialequalityofvisual(painting,photography,film) andverbalhistory.Nevertheless,hisendorsementofthepopularityand historical richness of biography and “literary” historical styles mirrored theHollywoodstudios’prevailingperspectiveonwhatconstitutedworthwhileAmericanhistory. Morerecently,filmhistorianGeorgeF.Custenexploredtheclassical Hollywoodcinema’srelianceonbiographyasameansofpresentingand constructingpublichistory(bothAmericanandEuropean),arguingthat theeulogistic,ideologicallyconservativestudiosystemandbiographical tradition are uniquely suited vehicles of historical interpretation. However,filmsabouttheAmericanpast,especiallythosereleasedfrom1928 to1942,werebynomeansconfinedtowhatCustentermedthenarrativeconstraintsof“thegreat[male]life.”50Hollywoodscriptedthelives of real (Annie Oakley, Lillian Russell) and fictional (Ramona Moreno, ScarlettO’Hara)Americanwomen,reconfiguringthetraditionalnotion ofbiographyandconfrontingtheproblematicperformanceoffemininity andrace.Inspiteofmainstreamnarrativecinema’sobviousdependence ononeprotagonist,biographycompetedwithmanyhistoricalapproaches intheclassicalera.Popularhistory,historicalnovels,famouscinematic epics,oldnewsheadlines,andevenlegendsofHollywood’ssilentpastall contributedtothestudios’Americanhistoricalrepertoire.Andwhilethe
14 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
“professional” historical community forced female scholars to the margins,womenreclaimedtheirhistoricalvoicebydominatingtherealmof historicalfiction.America’smostinfluentialandpopularhistoricalnovelists during the late 1920s and early 1930s were Edna Ferber (Cimarron,1929;ShowBoat,1926)andMargaretMitchell(GonewiththeWind, 1936).AndwhileacademichistorianslikeNevinswerequarrelingover what constituted “history,” popular historians such as Albert Beveridge, WalterNobleBurns,andFredPasley;historicalnovelistssuchasFerber andMitchell;andfilmmakerssuchasZanuckandSelznickweredominatingthenation’shistoricalconsciousness. Manyofthesepopularhistorians(mostnotablyMitchell,Burns,and Scarface screenwriter Pasley) began as journalists or continued to write forthenewspapersaftertheyachievedsuccessashistorians.Thesewriters fractured the boundaries separating historians, historical novelists, and journalistsandredeterminedwhatconstitutedhistoricalmaterial.Burns (laterimmortalizedinHowardHawks’s1940“tribute”tothenewspaper business,HisGirlFriday)wroteaboutthenineteenth-centuryWestand BillytheKid,aswellaspostwarChicagoandAlCapone.Zanuckwould alsomanagethesehistoricaltransitions,producingbothAlexanderHamiltonandThePublicEnemyin1931,withinafewmonthsofeachother. Focusingontwentieth-centuryeventsandfigures,Hollywoodfilmmakers wouldredefinenotonlythetenuousborderbetweenhistoricalwritingand filmmakingbutalsothatallegedlyseparatinghistoryandjournalism. Over a fifteen-year period, these filmmakers presented alternative viewsoftraditionalhistoricalevents,filmedunconventionalbiographies offamousfiguresandlittle-knownAmericans,tackledthedivisiveyears sincetheGreatWar,andevenexaminedtheirownhistory.Greatmen andwomenandgreateventsinAmericanhistorydominatedthenarratives,butthesewereoftencriticalviews(Cimarron,Ramona,YoungMr. Lincoln) or popular biographies (Scarface, Jesse James); they dealt with controversialhistoricalissues(miscegenationandinterracialrelationsin Call Her Savage, Jezebel, and Gone with the Wind) and revelations of thingsthattraditionalAmericanhistoryoverlooked(ThePrisonerofShark Island,HollywoodCavalcade).Respectablehistoriansofthatgeneration eitherignoredthepresenceofhistoricalfilms(likeNevins)orcriticized their accuracy. After seeing The Scarlet Pimpernel (1935), Louis Gottschalk wrote to Samuel Marx, “No picture of a historical nature ought tobeofferedtothepublicuntilareputablehistorianhashadachance tocriticizeandreviseit.”51ButHollywoodfilmmakershadbecometheir ownhistorians;theynotonlyread,researched,andcitedtraditionaland
Introduction 15
contemporaryhistoricalworksbutalsopresentedtextanddocumentsin thefilmnarratives.Whilehistoriansattemptedtoseparatetheworldsand capabilitiesoffilmmakersandhistorians,Hollywoodwasactivelybreakingthoseboundaries. Yet decades later, historians continued to dismiss Hollywood’s attemptsatfilminghistoryevenasfilmscholarstendedtoignoresuchfilms asaberrationswithinthesystem.Twentyyearsago,Isenbergwrotethat professionalhistorianslackedamethodologicalvocabularywithwhichto categorizebadfilmhistory.Atonetime,historianswereactuallyhesitant aboutusingtheconceptsofmythandsymboltodescribefilmhistory.52 Unfortunately, since then, historians have more than made up for lost time,andintheirself-righteouspursuitofinaccuraciestheyhavedrained whateverscholarlydynamismwasoriginallyassociatedwiththisformof culturalanalysis.53Myth,asculturalhistorianssuchasRichardSlotkinremindedus,isthesimplebinarylanguageofcinema—amodethatreflects thenationalmoodandresolvesanyhistoricalconflictswithinablissfulvisualopiate.54Filmtheoristsandhistorians,unsureandevensuspiciousof theirAmericanhistorybutacquaintedwithClaudeLévi-Strauss’sStructural Anthropology and Roland Barthes’s Mythologies, have acquiesced toprofessionalhistorians’denigratingviewofHollywood“epics.”Ironically,Barthesbelievedallculturalproductionstobemythic,thewriting ofhistoryamongthem,aconceptthathasstrainedrelationsbetweenfilm critics and historians who still cling to the “noble dream” of objectivityandverifiablefacts.Yetfilmscholarsandhistoriansfoundthemselves agreeing about studio-era historical cinema. Hollywood marketed not onlytraditionalandcomfortingmythsbutalsoinaccurate(mythic)views ofhistoricalevents.HistorywassimplybeyondHollywood’sintellectual capabilitiesorprofessionalvalues,andfilmmakerswerecertainlynothistorians.55
Cahiers,Lincoln,andtheFightagainstFilmHistory Cahiersducinéma’sinfluentialessayonthe1939filmYoungMr.Lincoln, although rarely acknowledged by historians writing about film, argued that this landmark Hollywood production exemplified classical Hollywoodcinema’sreflectionofoverarchingnationalmythsandideology.56 PerhapsmorethananyotherHollywoodfilmofitsera,YoungMr.Lincoln has been forced to carry the burden of late-twentieth-century criticism ofclassicalHollywoodcinema.Amongthesefilmcriticsandhistorians, YoungMr.Lincolnis,forbetterorworse,thedefinitiveLincolnfilm.His-
16 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
torians writing within the past ten years have decided that it is for the worse,dismissingthefilmasahistoricaltravestyandaninaccurate,folksy perversionofLincoln’smostfamouslegalcase:the1858William“Duff” Armstrongmurdertrial.Thiscriticismreflectshistorians’entrenchedsuspicionofcinema,andHollywoodcinemainparticular,asahistoricalmedium.57Byprivilegingprintedwordsovermovingimagesandbooksover films,historianshavecondemnedYoungMr.Lincolnasaflawedhistoricaltext,capableofelicitingaestheticpleasurebutincapableofpresenting asophisticatedhistoricalargument. ForCahiersducinéma,aclassicalHollywoodfilm’shistoricalcontent waslessimportantthanitssupportorsubversionofanunderlyingcapitalistideology.Butthearticle,rarelyifevercitedbyAmericanhistorians or film historians, has great consequences not only for Young Mr. LincolnbutalsoforanyAmericanhistoricalfilmproducedintheclassical era.Cahierssupersededthebeliefthatcinemamerelyreflectsitscultural contextandinsteadarguedthatcertainHollywoodfilmsmadebydirectorssuchasJohnFordaretextsnotablefortheircomplicatedandoften subversiveengagementswiththedominantcapitalistideologiesthatsupportedHollywood.EventhoughYoungMr.Lincolnwasaproductofthe rulingpowerstructuresoperatinginHollywoodandAmericanpoliticsin thelate1930s,theyclaimedthatacloseLacanianpsychoanalyticreading ofLincoln’spresenceinthefilmrevealedtheoppressivenessofboththe LincolnfigureandtheAmericancapitalistsystem. CahiersassertedthatthisMarxist-psychoanalyticsubversionwasunconsciouslyexpressedbythefilmmaker.Inparticular,Cahiersreduced directorJohnFord’sroletothatofagiftedbuthelplessandunconscious mythmakerwhosecomplicatedfilmdiscoursewastrulyrevealedonlyby theCahierseditors’criticalmethodology.TodenyFordagencyasacritic ofthecapitalistorder,theeditorshadtodisabletheroleofhistorywithin YoungMr.Lincoln.Theythereforeclaimedthatwithinthefilm,history is“almosttotallyreducedtothetimescaleofmythwithneitherpastnor future,” since there are no direct references to politics, conflict, or the CivilWar.58TheirargumentdependsonviewingthefilmedLincolnas anidealizedmythicheropresentedwithoutanyhistorical-politicalcontext.Ford’sLincolnisseenasanexpressionofalong-term,uncontested culturalinvestmentratherthanahistoricalfiguresubjecttothefilmmaker’sdeliberatecriticalanalysis. Many film historians have silently (or unconsciously) consented to theimplicationsoftheCahiersducinémaessay,statingthatHollywood filmsgenerallyreflectamythicviewofthepastthatresolvestimelesscul-
Introduction 17
turalcontradictionsratherthanexploringthecomplexitieswithinhistorically specific terrain.59 Additionally, the narrative processes of classical Hollywoodcinema,classifiedasgenresorformulas,dependonaprocess ofsymbolizationthatdrainsitsmythicsubjectofhistoricalreality.Even thosestillunderthespellofauteurcriticismandthepopularlegendof JohnFordhavefocusedonFord’sindependentlaterworkastheepitome ofhishistoricalconsciousnessratherthanhismoreintensecollaborations withLamarTrotti,DudleyNichols,andDarrylF.ZanuckatTwentieth Century–Foxduringtheclassicalera.60 YoungMr.LincolnisnottheonlyAmericanhistoricalfilmthathas beenyokedtothetheoreticalprojectsoffilmcriticismandhistoricalreproach.Scarface(1932)hasbecomeanintegralpartofthegangstergenre, whileitshistoricalsubjectanddiscourseareignored;AnnieOakley(1935) andRamona(1936)havebeenforgotten;GonewiththeWind(1939)has become Selznick’s magnificent and flawed “moonlight and magnolias” epic;61 Sergeant York (1941) has become the ultimate propaganda feature;62Stagecoach(1939)wasrepresentedasthereturnofthegreatmythicwesterngenreepitomizedbyTheCoveredWagon.63Perhapsbecauseof theirimportanceastoolsforMarxist,psychoanalytic,andgenrefilmcriticism,aswhippingboysforhistorians,andastheepicfantasiesoffilmfans, Ifocusontheseveryproductionsastheindustry’smostcomplexandconspicuousexamplesofAmericanfilmhistoriography.Theirself-conscious historicalvoices,theirconstructedmanipulationoftextandimage,their deliberateconfrontationofcontroversy,allthwartthecriticalagendasof previousscholarlyinterpretations.
FoundationsofFilmHistoriography AlthoughthisstudyrevisestraditionalapproachestothediscourseofclassicalHollywoodcinemaandfilmsaboutAmericanhistory,itsmethodologyandconceptionoffilmhistoriographyowedebtstotheworkofWarren Susman,RobertA.Rosenstone,PhilipRosen,DonaldCrafton,andPamelaFalkenberg.Susmanwasperhapsthefirsthistoriantoacknowledge cinema’scomplexrelationshipwithhistory.Cinema,hewrote,notonly was capable of reflecting and documenting historical eras but also was important “as an interpreter of history.”64 For Susman, “the filmmaker, simplybecauseheoperatesdirectlyintermsoftheactualmanipulationof timeandspace,becauseinhiseditinghemakesarrangementsoftimeand spacethatshattersimplechronology,”functionslikeahistorian,“faced withthesameproblemoffindingtheproperarrangementofmaterialsto
18 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
provideaviewoftheprocessthatishishistory.”65Susmanwasthefirstto noticestructuralsimilaritiesbetweentheconstructionoffilmedhistory andwrittenhistory.66AlthoughHaydenWhitehasbeenvocalinhisdefenseoffilmasamodeofhistoricalinterpretation,likehisassociateRobertA.Rosenstone,heseparatedtheverbalandvisualhistoricaldiscourses ofhistoricalwriting(historiography)andhistoricalcinema.67Itssystem, address, and values were essentially different from those of writing; the wordwasseparatefromtheimage. Although,accordingtoMarcFerro,“afilmicwritingofhistory”does notexist,hearguedthatcertainEuropeandirectorssuchasAndreiTarkovsky and Luchino Visconti were capable of producing “an original contributiontoanunderstandingofthepast.”68However,Ferrodenied Hollywoodfilmmakersasimilarcapacity,claimingthattheymerelyreflecteddominantideologicalviewsofhistory.Inrecentyears,Rosenstone, RobertBurgoyne,StevenC.Caton,andNatalieZemonDavishaveproposed that isolated Hollywood films are capable of making serious historicalargumentsandcontestingentrenchedculturalideologies,yettheir examplesarefilmsthatweremadeaftertheclassicalstudioeraandundertheinfluenceofpost-structuralistdiscourse.69Evidently,withoutthe example of postmodern, post-structural teleologies, cinema lacked the self-reflexivehistoricalcapacityofcritique.Inhisexplorationoftheinterrelationsbetweencinemaandhistoriography,PhilipRosenperceiveda capacityformodernismandcriticaldistanceintheworkofBritishdocumentaryfilmmakerJohnGrierson,70butinChangeMummified,hedid littletorethinkthispossibilityforclassicalHollywoodcinema.71Hisview ofmodernAmericanhistoriography,epitomizedbytheworkofFrederick JacksonTurner,mirrorshisconceptionofclassicalHollywoodcinema’s historicalreach.Botharerelicsofaneradevotedtonationalencomiums andthedocumentingofperioddetails.Rosen’sperspectivehaschanged littlefroma1984essayinwhichheshowcasedtheallegedlypretentious, institutionalized, and assertive historical voice of The Roaring Twenties (1939).72HisviewofmodernAmericanhistoriographyneglectsthecriticalrevisionismexistinginbothhistoricalwritingsandfilmsoftheinterwarperiod. Although Donald Crafton viewed the classic British historical epic ThePrivateLifeofHenryVIII(1933)asaself-consciouslampoonoftraditionalhistory,73hedistancedhimselffromdebatesaboutfilm’scontinuitieswithtraditionalhistoricaldiscourseanditspotentialtointerpret thepast.Instead,CraftonsawKorda’sworkashistoricalfiction’sleveling andundercuttingofhistoryratherthanaspartofthemodernhistorical
Introduction 19
revisionismflourishinginthe1920sand1930s.ForCrafton,asforWhite, Ferro, and Rosenstone, cinema does one thing, the tradition of written history another. The word and the image continue to have a separate butequalstatusinstudiesofHollywoodcinema.74OnlytheworkofPamelaFalkenberghasaddressedclassicalHollywoodcinema’scapacityfor a deliberately constructed, written discourse on the past. Although her researchwasconfinedtothecinema’ssubversionandreaffirmationofthe systemofcorporatecapitalismthatproducesit(viaCahiers),Falkenberg wasthefirsttonoticeprojectedtextanditsambivalenthistoricalconnotationsinCecilB.DeMille’sepicofwesterndevelopment,UnionPacific (1939).75
TheNewAmericanFilmHistoriography Inthefollowingpages,IarguethatafilmicwritingofAmericanhistory flourished in Hollywood from 1931 to 1942.76 Rather than force-fitting classical Hollywood films into an industrial-artistic formula or deconstructingtheirmythicdiscourses,thisbookaimstoreconstructacritical understandingofclassicalHollywood’sAmericanhistoricalcycleandits engagement with professional and popular history, traditional and revisionisthistoricaldiscourse,andmodernhistory.Althoughmyearlierwork onCimarron,YoungMr.Lincoln,andThePublicEnemyaddressedclassicalHollywoodcinema’scapacityfordeliberate,criticalwritingofAmericanhistory,itsclaimswerenecessarilynarrowerandappliedtoindividual films.77HereIhaveexpandedtheseargumentsforfilmhistoriographyto includeapan-studio,fifteen-yearperiodtoexamineHollywoodfilmmakers’ changing attitudes toward traditional and contemporary American historicalwriting. Hollywood filmmakers’ attitudes toward history survive in productionmemos,researchnotes,reviews,and,ofcourse,thedevelopmentof scripts.Morethananyotherproductiongroupofthisera,Americanhistoricalfilmswereproductsofcarefulscriptingandcontinualattentionto thetext.Indeed,inordertoargueforaclassicalHollywoodfilmicwriting ofhistory,Ihavefocusedonthemostfundamentalmanifestationoffilm historiography:thescript.Actorssimplycouldnotoverridethescriptand deleteascene,andwhencensorsdemandedrevisionsandcuts,theyoften metwithvigorousresistance.Duringthe1930s,theProductionCodelost itsmostpubliccensorshipcampaignsoverhistoricalfilms(Scarfaceand GonewiththeWindaretwoofthemoreprominentcases).Althoughthe ProductionCodewasvigorousinitssuppressionofthemesofmiscegena-
20 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
tion,CallHerSavage,Ramona,Jezebel,andGonewiththeWindallmanagedtochallengetraditionaldiscoursesofraceandsexualityandescape rigorouscensorship.Historywasoftenprotectionagainstcensorshipand a means of making controversial films. Screenwriters have traditionally beenseenastheleastpowerfulcontingentinHollywood,butevenbeforetheScreenWriters’GuildwascertifiedbytheNationalLaborRelationsBoardinAugust1938,78individualwritersatseveralstudioshadan unusualindependenceandautonomyovertheirwork.Historicalscreenwritersoftendidtheirownresearch,wroteoriginalscreenplays,andhad thepowertoworkaloneandmaketheirownrevisions.Oftentheirstory sense overpowered their producers. These writers were more respected thanothers,particularlyatTwentiethCentury–Fox,whereZanuckmade LamarTrottiandNunnallyJohnsonsomeofthemostpowerfulwritersin Hollywood.TrottiandJohnsonandRKOwritersHowardEstabrook(Cimarron)andDudleyNichols(TheArizonian,Stagecoach)wouldeventuallybecomeproducersanddirectors.Butifscreenwritersbrieflyexerted powerinthisoneareaofHollywoodfilmmaking,itwasduetoproducers suchasZanuck,Selznick,WilliamK.LeBaron,HalWallis,andGeorge Schaefer. Thefollowingpagesnotonlyrecoveraneglectedfilmcyclecrucial toclassicalHollywoodfilmmakingbutalsocallforafundamentalrevision in the way scholarship considers classical Hollywood cinema and filmhistory.Inthepast,filmhistorieslookedatHollywoodinisolation fromtherestofthecountry;oneofthemostdeeplycherishedbeliefsin AmericanfilmhistoryisthatHollywoodproducerspaidattentionsolelyto box-officereturns.79However,whereAmericanhistoricalfilmmakingwas concerned,producersactuallypaidattentiontowhattheNewYorknewspapersandothernationalpublicationssaidabouttheir“prestige”films.80 AtRKO,producerKennethMacgowaneventriedtoconvinceSelznickto hirecriticsRichardWattsandGilbertSeldesasscreenwritersfortheirnew prestigeproductions.81WhenpreparingtowriteascriptaboutAmerican history,screenwriterscompiledandconsultedabibliography,notjustpast filmsuccesses.Researcherstraveledtonationallibraries;publicityagents workedwithlocalfamiliesandmuseums.Hollywood’srelationshipwith Americanhistoricalfilmmakingtookfilmproductionoutsidethestudios. Althoughsomewerethemostsuccessfulfilmsoftheireras(SanFranciscoandTheGreatZiegfeld,1936;AStarIsBorn,1937;InOldChicago,1938;GonewiththeWind,1939;SergeantYork,1941),82manymore Americanhistoricalfilmsconsistentlylostmoneyforthestudios(TheBig Trail,1930;Cimarron,1931;TheConquerors,Scarface,andSilverDollar,
Introduction 21
1932;TheMightyBarnum,1934;SoRedtheRose,1935;Sutter’sGold, 1936;WellsFargo,1937;TheGirloftheGoldenWest,1938;YoungMr. LincolnandTheStoryofAlexanderGrahamBell,1939;NorthwestPassage,1940;CitizenKane,1941;TennesseeJohnson,1942).83Butinsocial historianLeoRosten’simaginarydayinthelifeofaproducer,everything is reducible to money: “The ‘screwball’ pictures are packing them in; Mason’sWivesonLeaveiscleaningup,andWolf’sAlexanderHamilton, a fine historical dramatization, stands to lose $200,000. The New York office and the exhibitors say that anything ‘heavy’ is murder at the box office.”84Thissmugshorthandhadahistoricalsting;althoughtheother filmswereimaginary,RostenwasnotmakingupAlexanderHamilton.It didlosemoneyattheboxoffice,asdidmany“heavy”historicalfilms.But anumberofHollywoodproducers,possiblyencouragedbyfilmcritics, continuedtomaketheseexpensivehighbrowfilmsuntilwartimeproductionandshrinkingbudgetsfinallycurtailedthecycle.Thisgoesglaringly againstthegrainoftraditionalstudiesofHollywoodfilmproduction,in whicheveryfilmmakingdecisioncanbereducedtofinancialconsiderations. So in this study, box office–audience reception is of negligible importancecomparedtotheproductionhistoryandcriticalreceptionof thesefilms. In his history of Hollywood production from the Great Depression to the advent of full-scale European war in 1939, film historian Colin ShindlerarguedthatHollywood’s“goldenage”emergedatatimeofnationalandinternationalcrisis.85Althoughitiscertainlytemptingtosee Hollywood’scomplexandcontradictoryengagementwithAmericanhistoryfromCimarrontoCitizenKaneasaresponsetothegrowingpopularawarenessofhistoricalrelativism,revisionism,andmodernAmerica, orasamassivemythicmanifestationofnationalnostalgiainthefaceof contemporaryuncertainty,theseexplanationsaretoosimplistic.Rather thansimplycontextualizingtheseinterwarorDepression-eraAmerican historicalfilmsasreflectionsoftheirculturalmilieuorculturalartifacts,86 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinemaforegroundsthesefilms’continuitieswithtraditionalhistoricalwritingandinterpretationandexplores theirself-consciousinterpretationofAmericanhistory. TheAmericanhistoricalfilmsinthisstudycutacrossstudiogenres popularizedbyfilmstudies,suchasthegangster,western,biopic,musical,andmelodramagenres;theycutacrossstudio-namedcyclessuchas thewoman’spicture,theactionfilm,theepic,thecrimedrama,thesuperwestern,andeventheAstaire-and-Rogerscycle.Filmmakersoftenreferredtothesefilmsas“historicalepics,”“costumers,”“prestigedramas,”
22 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
or“biographies.”Theywerealllinkedbytheirhistoricalsubjectmatter andself-consciousreferencestoAmericanhistory;theirprojectedhistorical commentary, documents, portraits, and tableaux; their use of text; their research and publicity; their expense; the critical attention given toscreenwritersandhistorians;andtheircriticalresponsesandawards.87 Together,theyformedadiversebodyoffilmhistoriographyrangingfrom thestrugglesofearlypioneersandthemachinationsoftheexpandinggovernmenttothecontestedcareersofChicagogangstersandHollywood’s silentstars. Farfrombeingalinearfilmhistory,thisbooktravelsinanarcnegotiatedbyseveralkeyfilmsandfilmmakers.Thestudybeginsin1930,ayear ofcrisisforAmericanhistoricalcinema.Manyautocraticsilentdirectors andtheirwriterscouldnotadapttothepossibilitiesofthenewmedium. Studiosseemedhesitanttoinvolvethemselvesinexpensiveepicsthatnow demandedaccurateandsophisticatedspeech.However,withtherelease ofCimarronandThePublicEnemyin1931,Hollywoodreclaimedthehistoricalcycle.Cimarronnotonlyrevisionedthenation’sfrontierpastbut alsobecametheindustry’sstandardforhistoricalperfection.Theproduct ofarisk-taking,impoverishedstudioandaninnovativescreenwriter,RKO andHowardEstabrook’smasterpiecewouldbeHollywood’smostinfluentialAmericanhistoricalfilm.Thatsameyear,ThePublicEnemyconfrontedpostwarmodernhistoryandnationaldeclineandredefinedthecanon ofnationalheroes.Thefilm’sproducer,DarrylF.Zanuck,wouldbecome Hollywood’smostversatileforceinAmericanhistoricalfilmmakingand oneofthefirstfilmmakerstofightcensorshipwiththetalismanofhistory. Zanuckbeganthe1930sbyexploringveteransofotherwars,unknown heroesfromforgottenwesternfronts,corruption,greed,andthenation’s lossofasenseofitspast,whetherinmodernbiopics(IAmaFugitivefrom a Chain Gang) or in musicals (The Gold Diggers of 1933). As head of TwentiethCentury–Fox,hereturnedtothenineteenthcentury’srebels (ThePrisonerofSharkIsland,JesseJames)butalsorethoughtSelznick’s workonHollywood’shistory(HollywoodCavalcade). Cimarron’smultiracialandfeministWestwouldinspireRamonaand TheLastoftheMohicans;itsiconographywouldserveasatemplatefor filmsasdiverseasWellsFargo(1937)andHollywoodCavalcade(1939). SabraCravatwouldbeapowerfulantecedentforJulieMarstonandScarlett O’Hara, and Yancey’s biracial ancestry would color these southern heroines’ own subversive histories. In 1939 Warner Brothers would expungeCimarron’scriticalhistoricalattitudesandreworkitssettinginThe OklahomaKid(1939).Butin1940,OrsonWellesandHermanMankie-
Introduction 23
wiczwouldreturnnotonlytoRKObutalsotoCimarronandthenational legacyitcreated.IarguethatCitizenKane’spompousNewsontheMarch anditsvisualizationofafilmicwritingofAmericanhistorythroughthe lifeofadegenerated“western”herocompletedthearcofAmericanfilm historiographygeneratedbetween1930and1941.Thefilm’scinematic excavation of both Hollywood and the nation’s past brings this critical filmhistoryfullcircle,backtothesmall,risk-takingstudioandmaverick filmmakers. UnlikeThomasSchatz,Idonotarguethateachstudiohada“house style”oraparticularhistoricalattitudeorviewpointadheredtofromfilm tofilm.Instead,Ifoundthatasmallgroupofproducersanddirectorsdeliberatelyturnedtheirbacksontraditionalviewsofthepastandacanonof Americanheroes,whileotherfilmmakerspresentedacompetinghistoricaldiscourse,perhapsmorespectacularandlavish,butultimatelyuncritical and traditional. This dialectic animates the history of the West, the CivilWar,theGreatWar,theRoaringTwenties,andevenHollywood. But sometimes Hollywood’s most challenging American historians had misgivingsaboutthecycle;Zanuck,mostnotably,changedhisattitude in late 1939. Selznick would pioneer innovative histories of the Civil WarandearlyHollywoodbutavoidedthecontroversyofthenineteenth- centuryWestandtheReconstructionera.WarnerBrotherswasresponsibleforboththesubversivesouthernperiodfilmJezebelandwhatcritic FrankNugentwouldtermthe“dog-earedscripts”ofTheOklahomaKid (1939)andTheFighting69th(1940).CecilB.DeMillemayhavegeneratedmoreAmericanhistoricalboxofficethananyotherfilmmaker,butit wastheperenniallybankruptRKOthatproducedHollywood’smostcriticallyrespectedhistoricalfilms,CimarronandCitizenKane. OrsonWelles,echoingD.W.Griffithin1915,oncedefendedCitizen Kaneasahistoricalfilm.Hewrote,“Itwasimpossibleformetoignore Americanhistory.”88Thismustalsobethereasonfortheshapeandargument of this book. Although some film historians may object to the unusual prominence given to projected text, screenwriters, and written history, historians will doubtless react adversely to my claims for visual history.Filmtheoristsmaysniffattheunduecreditgiventotrade-paper reporters,nationalcritics,andexhibitorsandmyoccasionalthrustsatcanonicalfilmtheory.ContemporaryhistoriansmaydislikethegreateremphasisplacedontheworkofhistoriansCarlBecker,WalterNobleBurns, andevenEdnaFerberandMargaretMitchellandmypointedrefusalto focus on and valorize more recent historical contributions to these areas.TheywillundoubtedlyshuddertoseeFerber,Mitchell,Welles,and
24 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
Zanuckdefinedas“historians.”Thesewerealldeliberateandnecessary choicesintendedtoquestionthecanonsoffilmstudiesandAmericanhistory.Thisapproachisintendedasacomparativehistoriography,anditattemptstocombineboththehistoricalcritiquesandthenarrativesynthesis employedbyHollywood-basedAmericanhistoriansfrom1928to1942. Althoughfilmscholarsandhistorianscontinuetoarguethatmodernand postmodernerashavewitnessedadvancesinfilmformandhistoriography,thisbookrevealsacriticalrevisionism,ifnotaprotomodernism,at theheartofinterwarclassicalHollywoodcinema.
Part One
Traditional and Modern American History
This page intentionally left blank
1
TheNewAmericanHistory: Cimarron,1931 There’sbeennothinglikeitsinceCreation! —YanceyCravat,Cimarron,1931
InApril1929,filmcriticandplaywrightRobertE.Sherwoodpredicted thatHollywood’sadaptationtosoundcinemawouldimprovetheoverall qualityofmotionpicturesand,moreparticularly,increasethepowerof screenwriters.Convincedthat“thewriterwillnowbeboostedintoaposition ofimportancethatisequivalent,atleast,to that of the director,” SherwoodcouldlookbackontheAmericancinema’ssilentpastwithout regret.1Hiscolleagues,criticsGilbertSeldes,RudolfArnheim,andBéla Bálazs,werenotsosanguineandgloomilypreparedfortheword’styranny overtheimage.2Thestudios’1929seasondidlittletodispeltheirprognostications; photographed Broadway musicals (Show Boat, Glorifying the AmericanGirl),verboseandstaticplays(TheLastofMrs.Cheyney,This Thing Called Love), and even stories about Broadway (Gold Diggers of Broadway,Broadway)dominatedtheboxoffice.Thoughfilmexecutives hiredanindiscriminatenumberofBroadwayplaywrightsandwritersin thelate1920s,fewofthemwerecapableofadaptingtothescreen.Even though Sherwood envisioned a new age of screenwriting in the sound era,executiveswereslowtoacknowledgetheprimacyofagoodscriptin filmproductionortorecognizethequalitiesthatdifferentiatedcinematic writing from eastern highbrow pap. No studio was willing to go to the expenseofmakingaD.W.Griffithoutofascreenwriter;perhapssome 27
28 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
evenfearedthedaywhenthewriterwould“haveagreatdealtosayabout thepreparationandproductionofapicture,[when]hisremarkswon’tall bevariationsoftheaffirmativeyes.”3 Nowhere was the crisis in screenwriting more evident than in the productionofAmericanhistoricalfilms.Curiously,whilethestudioshad staved off potential box-office instability with fluffy musical comedies forthepasttwoyears,theyhesitatedtopursuethetypeoffilmthathad earnedtheAmericanfilmindustryitsfirstcriticalacclaimduringthesilentera.Byearly1930,thesoundequivalentsoftheprestigiousAmerican historicalfeaturesTheBirthofaNationandJamesCruze’sTheCovered Wagonhadfailedtomaterialize.Americanhistoricalfilmsrequiredmore thanlavishspectacleandstunningsetstocapturecriticsandaudiences; AmericanswerefamiliarwiththehistoricaltextoftheCivilWarandthe “winningoftheWest”andwouldnoticetoomuch“poeticlicense.”Were thedemandsofwrittenhistorytoocomplexforAmericancinema?If,as Sherwoodclaimed,screenwritingwaskeytoaregenerationofthefilmindustry,underwhatcircumstancescouldascreenwriterachievetheprestigeandpowerofatraditionalhistorian?
TheQuestionofAmericanHistoryin1930 Inearly1930,D.W.GriffithbeganfilmingasoundbiographyofAbrahamLincoln.AlthoughhewasarguablythefatherofAmericanhistorical cinema, it was not certain whether Griffith could reclaim Hollywood’s pastartisticandeconomicfeats.Forthepastfewyears,thedirector’sboxoffice potential had slipped. Although his last American historical production,theromanticRevolutionaryWarnarrativeAmerica(1924),had beenpopular,somecriticsfoundhisfilmtreatmentasdatedasthesubjectmatter.4InplanningAbrahamLincoln,hestillmaintainedhistaste forperiodstoriesbutwiselyhiredaprofessional“historical”screenwriter tosharpenhislengthytreatment. HiringStephenVincentBenét,authorofJohnBrown’sBody,wasa public-relations coup for United Artists, but Benét was not all that differentfromaslewofotherNewYorkwriterswhocametoHollywoodin theearlysoundera.HethirstedforHollywoodmoneybuthadanequal contempt for filmmaking and its artistic values. Also, as Benét freely admitted, he knew nothing about screenwriting and left Griffith and his secretary to handle the mechanics.5 Though he claimed that his script, an edited version of Griffith’s original, was detailed, accurate, and“playable,”executives,perhapsrelishingthechancetochastenthe
TheNewAmericanHistory 29
uppityNewYorker,forcedhimtowritefiveversionsbeforeagreeingon the final one, which was episodic, epigrammatic, and sentimental. AlthoughBenétcomplainedaboutthe“sheerwaste,stupidity,andconceit” ofJosephSchenckandthefrontoffice,Griffithallowedtheproducersto reworkthescript.6 VarietyadvertisedthefilminAugustas“Griffith’sbiggestcontributiontotheexhibitor”anda“masterpiece...[without]alineofdialog that would offend race, color, creed or belief,” while Richard Watts of the New York Herald Tribune commended its “dignified” treatment of Lincoln’s life.7 However, most critics were appalled by its sentimentality and old-fashioned, static treatmentof history. Mordaunt Hall of the NewYorkTimespreferredthelivelierDramaticLifeofAbrahamLincoln (1924) and wrote that the sound film failed “to give the details of the scenesthatweresoablytoldinthemutework.”Hallalsocomplainedthat Griffithwasguiltyof“prognosticatingtooofteninthecourseofscenes.”8 InsteadofportrayingtheeventsinLincoln’slifeaspartofacomplexand evolvingprocess,crucialeventsweregivenintheirmythictotalityina seriesoftableaux:theyoungLincolnwasneveranimmature,uncertain youthbutalwaysthehero.Aboveall,Lincoln’sheroicpresencestabilized bothpersonalandnationalconflictsinamonotonous,schoolbooknarrative.Themostfamous,emblematicmomentsofLincoln’slifewerestrung togetherinacollectionofstaticscenesanddeliberatelyenunciatedepigrams(Lincolnreadingbyfirelight,thedeathofAnnRutledge,thecoming of the Civil War, the Gettysburg Address, the assassination). Harry AlanPotamkinoftheNewMasseswasmoredirectinhiscriticismofthe sentimentalizedeulogy,whichhedismissedas“amooningidyll.”AccordingtoPotamkin,Griffith’scallowsenseofAmericanhistoryportrayed“a Lincolnthatanychildbeyondthefifthgradeinschoolwoulddisown.”9 Curiously,Potamkindidnotimplythatthesoundmediumwasatfault, butratherthatthesilentaestheticstandardsGriffithhadperfectedyears beforewerenolongeranymatchforaninnovativenewartform.Afilm aboutLincolnrequiredanastutehistoricalperspectiveconveyedthrough languageandargument,notthefolksyimagesandsymbolsofsilentcinema,themawkishscenesofrail-splittingandsickbedmomentswithRutledge.RatherthanrevivingtheAmericanhistoricalcyclehehadhelped create fifteen years before, Griffith’s work on Abraham Lincoln proved thatsilenttechniqueslackedthehistoricalcomplexitiesandsophistication demanded by sound-era critics. And yet, critics in Hollywood and NewYorkjustifiedthefilm’sserioussubjectmatterasawayofelevating theAmericancinemaanditsaudiences.
30 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
Thatsameyear,otherHollywoodfilmmakerstriedtorevisitAmericanhistorythroughanothertraditionalroute.Thewesternhadlongbeen the American cinema’s most consistent contribution to historical filmmaking and had been a mainstay of the industry long before Griffith’s TheBattleatElderbushGulch(1913).In1929and1930,bothParamount andMGMexperimentedwithdifferentvarietiesofsoundwesterns,but ratherthancommissioningscreenwriterstoconstructnewnarratives,they reliedheavilyonremakesofsilentclassics.OwenWister’snovelTheVirginianhadbeenadaptedforstageandscreenshortlyafteritspublication in1902.The1914and1923filmversionswerestillfreshinHollywood’s memorywhenParamountdecidedtoremakethestoryasapartialsound feature in 1929. Wister’s tale, with its silent southern cowpoke, its vast landscapes,itsromanticnarrativeunmarkedbyhistoricalevents,andits numerous remakes, epitomized the mythic West. Always popular with filmgoers,thestoryhadcomfortingbox-officepotentialintheunstable early sound era. Director Victor Fleming clung to more than the narrative conventions of silent cinema; although advertised as “all talkie,” thefilmmadelittleuseofthemediumbeyondthesoundofcattleand gunfire.Afterall,themystiqueoftheherolayinhissilence.Fledgling screenwriterHowardEstabrookkepttothewesterntradition.Hedidnot insertanymaintexttitlesorintroductoryallusionstothetimeperiodor locale,andwhilethescriptsynopsisstressed“epicatmosphere,”thefilm possessed little of the epic historical pretension associated with a silent westernsuchasJohnFord’sTheIronHorse(1924).10UnlikeFord’searly epic, The Virginian’s landscape was unmarked by the historical consequencesoftherailroad;instead,theWestwasidentified with the open range.Asexpected,TheVirginianwasahit,inpartbecauseitclungto what Jerry Hoffman of the Los Angeles Examiner called “the good old days” of storytelling and filmmaking.11 But the panoramic silences and laconicherowerenotthingsthatthestudioscouldduplicateindefinitely. Unfortunately,MGMtookHoffman’spraiseforthe“resurrectionofthe much-mournedwestern”literallybyresuscitatingtwootherwesternnarratives.ParamountandWarnerBrothersfollowedsuitwithRexBeach’s TheSpoilers(1930)andDavidBelasco’sGirloftheGoldenWest(1930), whichwereequallyold-fashionedwesternspatternedafterTheVirginian’s success.By1930,however,criticswerecomplaining,amongotherthings, thatthenarratives“dawdled.”12PerhapsTheVirginian’spartialsilencewas initsfavor.In1929,withthecacophonyoftalkingdrawing-roomcomedies,GaryCooper’ssilencewasathrowbacktoamoreconfidentpast.In 1930,however,criticsweredemandingsomethingnew.
TheNewAmericanHistory 31
Laterthatyear,MGMexperimentedwithanewsoundwestern—a screenstoryofBillytheKid,looselybasedonChicagoreporterandpopularhistorianWalterNobleBurns’sTheSagaofBillytheKid.13Burns’sbiographyhadtherequisitedates,thedetailsofcattlebaronfeuds,andthe storiesofWilliamBonney’sfame,buthisbiographyhadanentertaining immediacy;itusedpresent-tensedialogueandhistoricalscenesthatwere immenselypopularwiththepublicandfamiliartofilmmakerswhowrote andreadscriptsinthepresenttense.Burns’sre-creationsofhistoricalmomentsmatchedthecinema’sowncapacitytomakethepastpresent,and heviewedBilly’slifeandwesternhistoryasadramaticpageantakinto thecinema.14BurnsalsorecognizedthatthemythofBillytheKidwas inseparablefromhisplaceinhistory.“Lessthanfiftyyearsafterhisdeath, itisnotalwayseasytodifferentiatefactfrommyth,”hewrote.“Historians havebeenafraidofhim,asifthisboyofsix-shooterdeadlinessmightfatallyinjuretheirreputationsiftheysetthemselvesseriouslytowriteofa careerofsuchdime-novelluridness.”15BurnsfearedneitherBilly’sstatus asapopulariconnorhisdramatic,cinematiclifeandlegacy. BurnsdevelopedademocratizedviewofAmericanhistory,anditappealedtoMGM’sstorydepartment.AlthoughthestudiokeptBilly’sname in the title, the screenwriters altered everything else, taking Burns’s inclusiveattitudetowardwesternhistoryandmythoverthebrink.Tunstall became Tunstan, and a romantic interest in Tunstan’s fiancée complicatedBilly’skillings.Historicaldetailsimplydidnotseemtomatter.Like TheVirginian,thefilmfadedinonanexpositoryshotofawagontrain amidst a herd of cattle.16 While critics had appreciated The Virginian’s unpretentious,archetypalgunfights,theyreactedwithcondescensionor hostilitytoMGM’sirresponsibletreatmentofhistory,itsdistortionsand fabrications, and its idea of a western as “a composite of gunshots and gooeyromance.”17Infact,theHollywoodReportercondemnedthefilm forbetrayingnotonlythehistoricalchallengeofBurns’sbiographybut alsotheexpectationsofAmericanaudienceswhowantedbetterfilms:“It seemsasthoughthetitlehadbeenboughttoattractthecustomersand insteadofmakingareallygreatepicpictureofoneofthebestlovedand mostdashingcharactersthateverroamedtheWestofpioneertimes,the producershavesucceededinmakingjustanotherwestern.”18 Afewmonthslater,FoxStudiostriedadifferentapproachtofilming westernhistory,hiringscreenwriterHalG.Evartstoconstructanoriginal story,atalkingequivalentoftheexpansionistepicTheCoveredWagon. The Big Trail was planned meticulously as a chronicle of westward expansion along the Oregon Trail in the mid-nineteenth century. Evarts
32 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
anddirectorRaoulWalshproclaimedintheopeningtitlethatthefilm honored“themenandwomenwhoplantedcivilizationandcouragein thebloodoftheirchildren.”Althoughittoofailedattheboxoffice,critics took its historical content more seriously. Although Variety’s Sime Silvermancalledit“anoisyCoveredWagon,”apoorrelationofthesilent westernepics,hedidpraiseTheBigTrail’shistoricalaspectsasthe“single interesting part.”19 But it was precisely the heavy history that some felt overwhelmed the flimsy romance and fictional film narrative.20 There wasasubtleawarenessonthepartofsomecontemporaryfilmcriticsthat history’smultipleassociationsandcomplexnarrativescompetedwithand evencounteractedthepowerofatraditional,clearlydefined,anduncomplicatedcinematicnarrative. WhileticketsalesforAbrahamLincolnandTheBigTrailfloundered and Hollywood recoiled from the economic shock and criticism, RKO executivesheldtheirbreath.Forthepastfewmonths,theirsmallstudio hadshoulderedthemountingcostsoftheirownAmericanhistoricalepic, afilmthatfitintonorecognizablehistoricalcategoryorfilmgenre.Itwas neitherexclusivelyawesternnorabiopic.Foundedonlyin1928,after thefinancialinstabilityofitsparentcompaniesnecessitateditsconsolidationbytheRadioCorporationofAmerica,Radio-Keith-Orpheumwasthe youngestofthemajorAmericanstudios.21ItemergedwiththetechnologicalrevolutionofsoundandgrewslowlyinthemidstoftheDepression. Thestudiohadtheleastcapitalresourcesofallthemajorstudiosandthe mostinvestedintheasyetunperfectednewfilmform.22Itwassymbolically fittingandevenmorefinanciallyimperativethattheyoungsoundstudio producethedefinitivesoundfeature.Now,astheendof1930approached andpostproductionandretakeswrapped,thestudio’spublicitydepartment preparedthewayforitsnewprestigefilmandstudioimage.Thestudio’s annualadvertisementinFilmDailyheralded“Mightiershows...Mightier plans...Mightierprogress.Theradiotitanopensthecurtainsoftheclouds andanewandgreateryeardawnsforthemostspectacularshowmachine ofalltime!Anewandmightierpageantofthetitansisforming...and marching irresistibly to leadership of the modern show world!”23 RKO wasstakingitsfutureeconomicandartisticcredibilityonanewtypeof Americanhistoricalfilm:theproductionofEdnaFerber’sCimarron.
RevisioningtheHistoricalFilmin1931 EdnaFerberwasoneofAmerica’smostfinanciallysuccessfulnovelists.24 She had a decided proclivity for writing generational narratives set in
TheNewAmericanHistory 33
America’spast,suchasSoBig(1924)andShowBoat,andforconstructing semibiographicalstagehitswithGeorgeS.KaufmansuchasTheRoyal FamilyofBroadway,abarelyconcealedportraitofAmerica’sgreatesttheatricalfamily,theBarrymores.Alltheseworksbecamesuccessfulfilms, andby1930,FerberwasoneofthemostbankablenamesinHollywood. WhilepreparingforShowBoat,shehadresearchedthelivesofnineteenthcenturysouthernperformers,butsouthernhistoryservedonlyasacolorful backgroundfortheHawksfamilyodyssey.Cimarronwasdifferent.Ferber decidedtowriteachronicleofacouple’smarriageoverseveraldecades, butshespentmonthsresearchingherhistoricalcontext—Oklahomahistoryfromthebirthoftheterritoryto1929—intheStateHistoricalLibrary inOklahomaCity.Shementionedthesepreparationsinherprefacebut deliberatelydistancedherworkfromtheacademicworldofprofessional historians.Ferberwascertainlynopedant;shebelongedtothesmartsetof NewYork’sliteraryanddramaticworldandwasproudofit.Nevertheless, Cimarron, in many ways Ferber’s first self-consciously historical novel, bearsconsiderationwithcontemporarywesternhistoriography. By1930,afewprofessionalhistorianshadbeguntoquestionthetraditional historical interpretations of Frederick Jackson Turner, but the criticism tended to dispute individual aspects of Turner’s “frontier thesis”ratherthantogenerateanorganizedalternative.25Turner’spostwar professional critics, among them Charles Beard, John C. Almach, and CareyMcWilliams,contradictedTurner’sproclamationthatthefrontier hadclosedin1890,deprecatedhismagisterialtone,andfocusedonhis unjustifiableneglectofeasternvaluesinmoldingtheAmericancharacter.26 Few professional historians were capable of synthesizing a developedalternativetodominantwesternhistoriography.Arguably,thefirst widelyreadrevisionisthistoryoftheWestwaswrittennotbyanaccredited academicbutbyapopularnovelist.WhenFerberpublishedCimarronin early1930,sheacknowledgedintheprefacethatalthoughthenovelwas “noattempttosetdownaliteralhistoryofOklahoma,”itchronicledthe experienceofafictionalpioneeringcouplefrom1889tothepresentday andwassupportedbyextensiveresearch.27AlthoughFerberlaterclaimed thatCimarronwasarevisionistaccountoftheAmericanWest,depicting Oklahoma’s multiethnic and multiracial settlement and development, sheconcentratedherhistoricalcritiquewithinherfictionalprotagonists, YanceyandSabraCravat.FerberfeltthatinherscathingportraitofSabra, a bigoted pioneer woman, she was denouncing the essential bourgeois capitalism of American society and its sentimental view of the female pioneer.28“Itcontainsparagraphsandevenchaptersofsatire,”shesaid.
34 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
YetacademicswerenotwillingtocreditaBroadway-HollywoodsuccesslikeFerberwithhistoricalsensitivity.Writingin1931,literarycritic Percy Boynton understood the novel only as a popular reconfirmation of Turner’s 1893 frontier thesis, as a culmination of twentieth-century westernnostalgia.29Otherreviewersweremorepointedintheircriticism ofFerber’sromantichistory.DorothyVanDoren’sreviewfortheNation was tellingly entitled “A Pioneer Fairy Story,” and she concluded that althoughFerber’shighlycoloredwesternnovelwaspoorhistoryandtrite literature,itmightbethebasisforanexcitingfilm.30IfVanDorenand othercriticstookadimviewofpopularhistoricalnovelistssuchasFerber, theirartisticexpectationsofmotionpictureswereevenlower.PopularhistorianE.DouglasBranchwasparticularlyanxioustoseparatehiswritten historical territory from the encroachments of Hollywood. He believed that whereas he and other “serious” historians chronicled complex historical events and movements, the glorious evolution and repetition of thefrontierexperience,popularfilmswereinterestedonlyinflashyindividuals.“CalamityJane,SimonGirty,KitCarson,SamBass,makegood melodrama,”hesniffed.“BillytheKidisnowinthephotoplays,where,so farasIamconcerned,hebelongs.”31 TheHollywoodmotionpicturecommunity’sexpectationsforCimarron could not have been more different. Critics anticipated that RKO wouldtransformEdnaFerber’sbest-sellingnovelintoinnovativeAmerican historical cinema, not a run-of-the-mill western or bandit biopic.32 RKOwasinitiallyenthusiastic,spendinganunprecedented$125,000on thestory,33butregardlessofthesuccessofSoBig,TheRoyalFamilyof Broadway, and Show Boat, Cimarron was something different.34 It was notamusical,anditwasbasedonrelativelyunexploredhistoricalmaterial.RKOknewtherisksinproducinganexpensivehistoricalfilm,butin spiteofitsominouseconomicsituationandtherecentcriticismleveled atbothsoundfilmsandhistoricalproductionsbyleadingnationalcritics, thestudiohiredWilliamK.LeBarontooverseetheproductionandthen former Broadway stage producer and writer Howard Estabrook to createCimarron’sscreenplay.Estabrookwasnotadisdainfuleasternimport likeBenét;hewascomfortablewithHollywood.LikeFerber,Estabrook had a decided predilection for historical subjects and had garnered his greatestsuccesseswritinghistoricalmaterialintoParamount’sGreatWar lovestoryShopwornAngel(1928),TheVirginian,andHowardHughes’s wartimeaviationepicHell’sAngels(1930).Heseemedtheidealchoice totransformCimarron. Noteveryoneatthestudiosharedthisenthusiasm.RKOstoryeditor
TheNewAmericanHistory 35
PaulPowellstillworriedabouthisstudio’sgamblewithanotherhistorical epic. If the wealthier and more established United Artists, MGM, and Foxhadfailed,socouldRKO.EvenafterthecompletionofEstabrook’s adaptation and first script, Powell fretted, “Although the characters are fictitious,thisisessentiallyahistoricalnovel...Ibelievethatitisamatter ofexperiencethathistoricalnovelshavenot,asarule,proventobegood picture material, and I fear this is no exception.”35 Although Cimarron hadsoldwellasahistoricalnovel,heandothersfearedthatthehistory Estabrooktransferredtothescreenwouldnotbepalatabletoapopular motionpictureaudience.ThespecterofTheBigTrailhungoverthestudio.YetEstabrookrefusedtominimizethehistoricalelementsinfavorof thefictionalstory;likeFerber,hedidextensiveresearchontraditionaland contemporarywesternhistory.AlthoughEstabrookincludedhisfairshare ofWalterNobleBurns’sandCourtneyRyleyCooper’spopularhistories inhisbibliography,andevenrereadEmersonHough’sfictionalTheCoveredWagon,hewasnotgoingtopatternCimarronafterthetriumphant chronicle of white westward expansion. Estabrook was one of the few peopletoreadWilliamChristieMacLeod’sTheAmericanIndianFrontier(1928),arareviewofthewhitesettlementofAmericafromtheNative Americanperspective.36ForMacLeod,“Everyfrontierhastwosides.... Tounderstandwhyonesideadvances,wemustknowsomethingofwhy theothersideretreats.”Thefrontiersmanwasnohero,butthescumof theeasternsettlers.AccordingtoMacLeod,historianswereequallyguilty ofromanticizingthepioneers:“Inthelittleredschoolhouseitisasacrilegetointimatethatthepioneerssufferedfromordinaryhumanfrailties....Butthemasseswerenobetterthanthemassesofanysociety.”37 MacLeod’sbookwasunnoticed,eveninacademiccircles,butEstabrook wascertainlyinfluencedbythemaverickhistorian’sapproach.38 Estabrook also refused to emulate the one major Hollywood precedent for Oklahoma history—W. S. Hart’s Tumbleweeds (1925), which usedthe1893openingoftheCherokeeStripmerelyasabackdropfor a cowboy-pioneer romance. Whereas both Hal Evarts’s historical novel andHart’sfilmsublimatedtheIndianperspectivetofocusexclusivelyon theimpendingdispossessionoftheStrip’sfree-rangecowboys,Estabrook retained Ferber’s revisionist picture of a multiracial and ethnic West, a dynamicspaceinhabitedbyNativeAmericans,mestizos,blackandwhite southerners,Jews,andAnglo-Saxonnortheasterners.Butthen,withthe support of director Wesley Ruggles, Estabrook completely transformed and emphasized Cimarron’s projection of history, moving Ferber’s acknowledgedsiteofhistoricalcontentionfromSabraCravattoabroader
36 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
Cimarron’s multiethnic,racial, andgenderedWest: YoungIsaiahimitates thebiracialYancey ashisstunnedwife lookson.
critique of the construction of western history. It was an unusual step awayfromcharacter-orientednarratives(TheVirginian)andbiographies (BillytheKid)andevenfamiliarhistoricaleulogies(TheBigTrail).EstabrookandRugglesintroducedtheideasofre-creatingthe1889landrush (whichFerberhadonlyalludedtoinhernovel),ofinsertinghistorical expositions,dates,anddocumentswithinthediegesis,andofintroducing thefilmwithanextensiveopeningtitle,ortextforeword.39 Titles were an indispensable component of silent films, essentially articulatingdialogueandgivingcontinuitytochangesintimeandplace. Theopeningtitleshadthegreatestlengthandimportance,however,particularlyinsilenthistoricalfilms.Someofthemostelaboratelyplanned, constructed,andmarketedsilentfilms—TheBirthofaNation,TheCoveredWagon,andTheVanishingAmerican—madeextensiveuseofopeningtitlesortextprologuestolendhistoricalauthenticityandcomplexity to their fictional narratives. With the advent of sound, one might have expectedtitlestodisappear,sincetheyweremerelycontinuitycrutches foranobsoleteartform.40Byandlarge,textdidvanishfromsoundfeatures—withoneconsiderableexception.Historyfilmsstillretainedtitles as a recognizable visual attribute, thereby self-consciously allying their narrativeswiththemoretraditionalandrespectableformsofwrittenhistory. Filmmakers compounded the relationship, referring to the opening text insert as a “foreword.” More than any other filmmakers in the earlysoundera,thoseofCimarronwereresponsibleforinauguratingthis structuralpractice.Theyevenincludedafootnoteafterthecredits;like Ferber’shistoricalnovel,EstabrookandRugglesacknowledgedamemoir asaninvaluableresource.41
TheNewAmericanHistory 37
Estabrook’svisionforweddingtextandimagewasanoriginalcomponent of his adaptation: he integrated an elaborate opening foreword and a continuous series of text inserts and documents within his first treatment and script. With Ruggles on board by August 1930, the two thenlayeredaseriesofdatedsuperimpositionstopunctuatetheshooting script.42Remarkably,almostalltheelaboratetextanddocumentinserts survivedpostproductionandexhibition.Textwasanessentialcomponent ofthehistoricalnarrative,notapostproductionafterthoughtusedtounify adisjunctivenarrativesuchasthatofMGM’sTheGreatMeadow.The latterfilm,basedonahistoricalnovelbyElizabethMadoxRoberts,43was aeulogytotheeighteenth-centurywomenpioneersofVirginiaandwould beCimarron’shistoricalcompetitorinearly1931.Likemanysilentepics, CharlesBrabin’sscriptshadnointerestinthehistoricalmaterialbeyond its weak support of the fictional romantic melodrama, but late in postproduction, MGM hired dialogue writer Edith Ellis to add a historical dedicationtothe“womenofthewilderness”andafewtextinsertschroniclingthestagesofthegruelingjourneytoKentucky.44Theforewordwas undoubtedlyaddedtodressupwhattheproducersfearedwasafloundering production, but Ellis’s text inserts were modeled on The Big Trail. ThatHalEvarts–RaoulWalshepichadusedseveraltextinserts,butonly tosummarizetheprotagonists’moodsortociteunspecifiedpassagesof toilandtime.Inthissense,theuseoftextinbothTheBigTrailandThe GreatMeadowwasstillbasedonthesilenttechniqueofelucidatingthe fictionalnarrative.Incontrast,Cimarron’sfilmmakersestablishedtheuse oftextasthemediumforconveyingandquestioninganestablishedview ofAmericanhistory.
TextversusImage Cimarron’stwo-shotforewordreadsasfollows: ANATIONRISINGTOGREATNESS
THROUGHTHEWORKOFMEN
ANDWOMEN...NEWCOUNTRYOPENING...
RAWLANDBLOSSOMING...CRUDE
TOWNSGROWINGINTOCITIES...
TERRITORIESBECOMINGRICHSTATES... IN1889,PRESIDENTHARRISONOPENED
THEVASTINDIANOKLAHOMALANDS
38 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
FORWHITESETTLEMENT... 2,000,000ACRESFREEFORTHE TAKING,POORANDRICHPOURINGIN, SWARMINGTHEBORDER,WAITING FORTHESTARTINGGUN,ATNOON, APRIL22ND... This text prologue expresses the dominant academic and popular view ofwesternexpansionderivedfromTheodoreRoosevelt’sWinningofthe West (1885–1894) and particularly Turner’s “The Significance of the FrontierinAmericanHistory.”Cimarron’sgivenhistorystressesthatthe nation’s progress and greatness are dependent on an organic westward expansion. It is a history of egalitarian white settlement sanctioned by
EstabrookconceivedCimarron’sprojectedtexttitlesinhispreliminarydraft.
TheNewAmericanHistory 39
the authority of the president, a panegyric to the government and the people who transformed “raw land” into a great nation. As in Turner’s view,thepreviousoccupants,theIndians,havebeenalmostentirelywrittenoutofthehistoryoftheWest.The“vastIndianOklahomalands”are free,openeduptowhitesettlersbythegovernment;thereisnomention of brokentreatiesandterritorialdisplacement.The past wars with “the weakerrace”thatRooseveltdocumentedinTheWinningoftheWesthave givenwaytotriumphantsettlement.45Thelate-nineteenth-centurygenerationdescendsfromthe“distinctiveandintenselyAmericanstockwho werethepioneers...thevanguardofthearmyoffightingsettlers.”46Accordingtothefilm’sprologue,asOklahomagrowsfromterritorytostate, Cimarron’ssettlersfulfillRoosevelt’sprophecyofnationalexpansion.Also inscribedwithinthetextisTurner’sbeliefthat“Americansocialdevelopmenthasbeencontinuallybeginningoverandoveragainonthefrontier” andthatthe“truepointofviewinthehistoryofthenation...istheGreat West.”47BothTurnerandRooseveltsharedafaithinthewesternfrontier asthedefinitivesourceofAmericannationalidentityandhistory,andCimarron’sprologue,containingtherhetoricofprogressandsupplemented bypresidentialdecreeandthehistoricalspecificityofthedate,22April 1889,appearstoarrogatehistoricalauthoritytothefilmnarrativeandto legitimizetheestablishedhistoriesofRooseveltandTurner. Followingthetextprologue,Cimarrondissolvestoshotsofthesettlers preparingforthelandrush.TwoIndiansapproachatradesman’swagon. Seeingthemreachforhiswares,thewhitemerchantattacksthem,yelling,“Hey,dropthat,Indian,andgetout!”Ratherthansupportingthetext,
Cimarron:Awhite merchant-pioneer tellstheIndiansto getout.
40 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
Cimarron’s opening images work in counterpoint to the chauvinism of thewrittenhistoryandaddpoignancytotheunspokendispossessionand rampantracismonthefrontierthatwereallbutinvisibleindominant, early-twentieth-centuryAmericanhistories.Thisinitialcontrastbetween text and image, between a triumphant view of American history that stresseshomogeneouswhitesettlementandthemorecomplexrealityof racism,dishonorablegovernmentpolicies,andbrutalitycontainedwithin thefilmedimages,isastrategyrepeatedthroughoutthefilm’snarrative.48 CimarronpushesstillfurtherwhenitnarratesYanceyCravat’sroleinthe landrushandhisrecountingoftheeventstohissouthernin-lawsinWichita.Yanceymaypraisetheexpansionas“amiracleoutoftheOldTestament,”buthisrhetoricisironic.Yanceyisamixed-bloodCherokee. Bythelate1920s,HollywoodhadproducedafewwesternswithIndianormixed-bloodprotagonists,includingTheVanishingAmerican(1925) andRedSkin(1929),bothstarringRichardDix.GeorgeSeitz’sproduction of Zane Grey’s The Vanishing American, released to great popular andcriticalacclaimbyParamount,mayhavepavedthewayforCimarron.49 One might speculate that RKO’s decision to film Cimarron with DixwasevidenceofacycleofNativeAmericanwesternsandHollywood’s recognitionoftheNativeAmericanperspective.ButalthoughCimarron’s heroisnotthearchetypal,pure-bloodedAnglogunfightercleansingthe WestofIndians,neitherisheanoble,equallypure-bloodedIndiancon-
Estabrook’s annotated copyof Cimarron. (Courtesyof theAcademy ofMotion PictureArts andSciences)
TheNewAmericanHistory 41
demned, like Nophaie (the “vanishing American”), to extinction in a changing nation. He is neither a noble anachronism nor a casualty of nationalexpansion.YanceyCravat,alsoknownas“Cimarron,”isofmixed blood,andheisthefirstofthesenewheroestodominateandadaptto historicaleventsandchange.50WhenEstabrookfirstreadFerber’snovel, which hinted more than once that Yancey was half Indian, he heavily underlinedandannotatedthepassages,determinedtofocusonthem“in dialog.”51Inthescripts,EstabrookemphasizedbothYancey’sancestryand hisactivesympathywithhispeople.Yanceyevenhasavoiceinwriting thehistoryoftheWest;heisanewseditor,andtheheadlinesfromhis aptlynamednewspaper,theOklahomaWigwam,playanintegralrolein narratingCimarron’swrittenhistoryoftheWest.
Cimarron’sCounterhistory The film’s next text insert occurs after the land rush as Yancey, Sabra (RKO’s recent acquisition, Irene Dunne), and son Cimarron arrive in Osage,Oklahoma.Thetitlereads,“TheboomertownofOsage—apopulationof10,000insixweeks.”Again,aseriesofimagesfollowsthatquestionstheprogressandoptimisminherentinthetown’spopulationgrowth. A“half-breed”shootsamaninfrontofasaloon,alawyerrookshisclients, andapioneeringhusbandandwifeworkthroughthenighttogettheir framehouseup.Later,aftertheCravatshavemovedintotheirnewhouse, youngCimarronischastisedbyhismotherforacceptingapresentfrom one of “those dirty, filthy Indians.” Following this sequence, Sol Levy, thetown’sJewishmerchant,isabusedbyagroupofsaloon-loafingwhite trash.Yanceyplaysanironicroleinboththesescenes.Sabra’svitriolicattackontheIndiansalsodenigratesYanceyandyoungCimarron’smixed blood—even Cimarron’s name. Sol is pushed against a grain scale by oneofthetownbullies,andwhenhisarmslockaroundthebalance,he resemblesacrucifiedChrist.YanceysavesSolandgentlyextricateshim. Thefilmpresentstwoscenesofviolentracialhatred—themotherteachingthesontohate,andanti-Semitism—which,althoughpartofFerber’s historicalnovel,wererarelyifeveracknowledgedinwrittenhistoriesof theWest. Soonafter“1890”fadesinandoutoveralongshotofthegrowing town, the film introduces a new text insert: the front page of Yancey’s newspaper. The headlines of the Oklahoma Wigwam are prominently displayed and announce ex-President Grover Cleveland as Benjamin Harrison’spossiblesuccessor,OttovonBismarck’sresignationfromthe
42 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
GermanChancellery,thecomingoftheWorld’sFairtoChicago,and, barely visible on the margins of the frame, Congress’s decision to preservethebuffalonowthattheyhavebeenslaughteredtonearextinction. In spite of the seriousness of some of the articles, the male voice-overs discussing the paper only joke about the editor’s note at the top of the page—YanceyandSabrahavejusthadasecondchild.ThepaperdocumentsatraditionalviewofAmericanexpansionconcurrentwithEuropeanpoliticalevents,whileundercuttingtheeffectsofthatgrowthwith theannouncementofthenearannihilationofthebuffaloandthepublic’s preoccupationwithtrivialities.Thefilmjuxtaposesthetextinsertwiththe morecriticalsocialhistoryrevealedintheimages.Soonaftertheglimpse oftheheadlinenews,Osagewitnessesanotherhistoricevent.Thefamous outlawknownas“theKid,”aformerfree-rangecowboywholosthisjobin thewakeofthedevelopingrailroad,returnstoOsage.Whenhisgangtries to rob a bank, Yancey, the Kid’s former associate, shoots and kills him. Duringthebattle,thetownsfolkcowerintheirhouses,andonlyafterthe Kidiskilleddotheyemergefromtheirdoorways.Ruggles’sunusualhighangleshottransformsthecitizensintovulturescrowdingacarcass. AlthoughviolencewasanintegralpartofRoosevelt’sWest,thebank robber,thegunfighter,andthestreetduelwerenotpartofeitherRoosevelt’shistoryorTurner’sagrarianvisions;theybelongedtoanotherpast. ThissceneinCimarronreferenceshundredsofHollywoodwesternssince their appearance at the turn of the century, and certainly Estabrook’s scriptedconfrontationbetweentheVirginianandTrampastwoyearsbefore.IsCimarron’sgunfightmerelyarepetitionoftheahistoricalgenre conventionsenumeratedbyfilmtheoristsWillWright,JohnCawelti,Jim Kitses,andRichardSlotkin?52Thesecodifiersofthewesterngenrehave always been uncomfortable with Cimarron and quickly dismissed it as anexpensivefailure.ButthereasonthatCimarronismentionedinwestern film criticism as a historical marker is precisely because it thwarts themythical,transhistoricalstructuresofgenreadaptedfromtheworkof ClaudeLévi-Strauss. Accordingtothiscriticalheritage,thewesterniscomposedofvisual codes and themes, a recognizable iconography and a series of refined narrative structures. These genre structures have a tendency to operate transhistorically.53 Therefore, even though westerns are set in the past, theypresentgeneralizedimagesevokingfrontiernostalgia.Thefilmsdo notquestionAmericanhistory.Throughgenre’spowerfulvisualsymbolism,thestructuresdramatizethedominantculturalideology.Aswithall myths, the western is said to lack a self-reflexive relationship toward its
TheNewAmericanHistory 43
Cimarron:Thevulture’seyeview.
subjectmatter;itpassivelymirrorsnationalmythsratherthandeliberately confrontingandcontestingthosediscourses.YetCimarron’sengagement withthetextoftraditionalhistoryfracturesthisinsular,mythicworldof thewesterngenre.Thiswesternactivelyengagesthestructureandprocessofhistory—eventhearchetypalsceneoftheshoot-outisaspecific momentprefacedbyadate,1890,andaseriesofdocumentedevents.54 AfterYanceyshootstheKid,thetownsfolkplantoputtheoutlawandhis gangondisplayinastorefrontwindow!Althoughthegunfightermaybe aheroicabstractioninwesternfilmcriticism,heisdocumented,onview inamakeshiftmuseum,anddeliberatelycontainedasahistoricalartifact inCimarron’snarrative. The next inserts occur in 1893. Again, a group of men studies the
44 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
headlines, which now read, “August 17, 1893: Cherokee Strip Opening. President Cleveland Expected to Sign Proclamation on Saturday ofThisWeek.RushofSettlersWillExceed1889.LongAwaitedNews StirsCountry.”Sabra,returningfromherwomen’sclubspeech,hasjust putOklahoma’spioneerheritageinsafe,historicalperspective.She,like Turner, views the frontier as closed and sees a new, settled era beginning.Sheisthereforestunnedwhennewsoffurtherlandrushesinspires herhusbandfirsttocriticizethegovernmentforitstrickeryandthento confoundhiscriticismbycavortingofftotheStripwithagroupofwhite, gun-totingcronies.ThissequenceiscriticaltoCimarron’shistoriography becauseitchallengesTurner’sideaofaclosedfrontierin1890byshowing yet another land rush about to happen in 1893. Oklahoma history provesthatthefrontierisstillviableandthatthelureofitsrhetoricstill blindsthenationtoitsownracism.ButSabra,ashistorian,refusesbothto acknowledgeherhusband’sneedtogototheStripandtoamendherview ofthepast.Sheremainstrappedinherversionofwesternhistoriography whilethefrontier,herhusband,andthefilm’shistoryrushonward. Moresignificantly,whiletheheadlineanddocumentsproclaimthe sizeandimportoftheexpansion,Yancey’sparticipationinthat“newempire building,” that perennial last frontier, is scripted not as a national necessityorasatriumphantpartoftheAmericanpastbutasawhiteman’s larkandanescapefromtownlife.Thefusedargumentofthenewspaper andYancey’ssearchfornewterritoryconstitutesitsowncritiqueofthe impulsesthatdrovethecountrytoexpand.HistorianGeraldNashwould writeyearslaterthatthemythicWestrepresentedanescapefromthereal West,andheconsideredHollywoodcinematobeanunconsciousexpression of this need to elude the burdens of history.55 Yet decades before Nashandotherhistoriansbegantofathomthemythicrhetoricofwestern history, Cimarron implied that the history of the West was a conscious retreatintomyth.EachhistoricallyspecifictitleinCimarronissuperimposed over an expanding urban landscape, and throughout the second halfofthefilm,itisaWestfromwhichthemythicfigure,Yancey,flees. Yancey’sdisappearance,thepassingoftheCherokeeStrip,andthe comingoftheSpanish-AmericanWarin1898areunitedinthetextofthe nextintertitle.ThefilmcutstothefrontpageofOsage’snewspaper(now run by Sabra), and male voice-overs discuss its headlines regarding the peacesettlement.YetSolLevyandSabratalkonlyoftheelusiveYancey. AsSolremarks,Yanceyhasbecome“partofthehistoryofthegreatSouthwest.”Indeed,hisfrontiersmantypehasbeenwrittenintothehistorical recordepitomizedbythetextinsertsandSol’sprojectedhistories.Ironi-
TheNewAmericanHistory 45
cally, this historicizing implies Yancey’s passing as a living force while hestilllivesinthefilmnarrative.Infact,Yanceyhasmadethetransition fromSouthwestfrontiersmantoRooseveltRoughRider:forthepastfew years,hehasbeenfightinginCuba.Thetitles’institutionalhistorymakes asimilaranalogy,notingtheendoftheCherokeeStripexpansionandthe comingoftheSpanish-AmericanWarasiftheywerenaturalprogressions in American nationhood. The headlines that once reported the opening of the Cherokee Strip now praise military victories abroad. In this sequence,EstabrookandRuggles’sjuxtaposedtextandimagesintroduce oneoftheconsequencesofterritorialexpansion:Americanimperialism. WiththeconquestoftheAmericanWestachieved,thefrontierexpanded beyondnationalborders. YetCimarron’sstructuralcontrastbetweenthesetwoeventsisnotthe straight linear progression implied by the text inserts; rather, it is confoundedbythescreenimages.Itisimportanttorememberwhatisnot shown in this sequence. One never sees that other frontier. Cimarron’s historicalnarrativeremainswithinOsage,andthereisnonarrativeprogressionfromtheAmericanWesttoCubaandthePhilippines.ThediegesiscirculateswithintheracialprejudicesofOklahoma.Theactionsof SabraandYanceyCravatalsothwartanyimaginednarrativeconflation ofterritorialexpansionandimperialism.AlthoughSabra’sdislikeofthe “lazy”Indians’neglectofthelandappearstosanctionaManifestDestiny viewofcontinentalexpansion,shestayswithinherwesternsphereandis noadvocateofimperialism.Yancey,asaRoughRider,executestheletterofAmericanimperialisminCuba,butheisnotmotivatedbySabra’s racial prejudice or chauvinism. It is his childish love of adventure and personalglorythatmotivateshisexpansionistacts. Yancey’sconflictingthoughtsandactions,hissympathyandkinship with the Indians, and his own lust for frontier adventure may embody what Richard Slotkin has called the “ideological ambivalence” of the Americanfrontier,mostvividlyexpressedinthemythicformsofclassical Hollywoodcinema.56Yanceyisthefrontiersmanwhomakesthejourney to Oklahoma, watches the town of Osage grow, and then leaves when civilization stifles him—the archetypal “hunter-hero” who destroys the wildfrontierheinhabitsandwhoembodiesAmerica’sconflictedattitude towardexpansion.57BykillingtheKid,Yanceyunwittinglycondemnshis worldandhimselftothepast.HeunderstandstheNativeAmericansbut goesontheCherokeerun. Slotkin’sassertionofmythicalcomplexityismisleading.Inhisanalysis,mythsdisarmcriticalinvestigation,58theirnarrativesaresimple,and
46 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
Sabra’sfrontier rhetoricelicits asadsmile fromYancey. (Cimarron)
thelanguageofmythiswrittenwithnogreatercomplexitythanasaseries ofbinaryoppositionsandresolutionscontainedwithinthedominant,triumphantviewofAmericanhistoryandthebland,happyendingsofHollywoodfilms.YetCimarron’sself-conscioushistoricalstructureproposes thattraditionaltextsonwesternhistorypresentabombasticandreductive versionofthepast.Yancey’sexaggeratedlastfrontierrhetoricandSabra’s mimed use of his words to historicize Oklahoma’s early years are both parodies.Atonepointduringthe1893sequence,asSabrastrikesapose andmimicsherhusband’sinitialspeechaboutOklahoma’smiraculous history(inasuitablydeepvoice),Yanceysmiles,bothgenuinelyamused andwistful.InEstabrookandRuggles’sfilm,Turner’srhetoricdefining theessentialnationalcharacterandRoosevelt’sfaithinAmericanexpansionarenotthefoundationsofanotherheroicizedtaleoftheAmerican past; they are the imperfect means by which people justify themselves. CimarronconfrontsAmerica’smythsratherthanmemorializingthem. The next series of titles begins in 1907, announcing Oklahoma’s statehood, and then cuts to a close-up of Roosevelt’s grim portrait and signatureonthedocument.ThisunusualseriesofimagesrecallsRooseveltaspresidentandashistorian.BothaffectedOklahoma’shistory.Yet Roosevelt’s histories of the West celebrated the industrial progress and unproblematic,raciallyjustifiedexpansionthatEstabrookandRuggles’s filmcontests.Roosevelt’sevolvingWestsanctionedtheeventualextinctionoftheIndiansandthetriumphofthewhiterace,anditcertainlydid notadmittheimmigrationofnon-Europeanethnicgroups.59Osage’soilrichIndiansandimmigrantChinesewouldnotfitintoRoosevelt’sWest. Within the film, the president’s endorsement of Oklahoma statehood
TheNewAmericanHistory 47
bringsnogreatchangestoOsage.Roosevelt’sbeliefthatthefrontierhad toendasanaturalstepintheindustrialprogressoftheUnitedStatesis contrastedwiththefilm’svisualizingofthepersistenceofclassandrace prejudice, government corruption, and the obsolete Yancey’s refusal to disappearentirelyfromthehistoryofOklahoma.
ScriptingModernAmericanHistory By1929,skyscrapersobliterateOsage’sviewofthewesternhorizon.Even amidthismodernity,theagehasbecomeself-consciouslyhistorical.Sabra reprints Yancey’s famed 1907 editorial excoriating the government foritsmistreatmentoftheOsageIndians.Thenation,onthevergeofthe GreatDepressionandadeflationoftheshibbolethofexpandingnational success,looksbackwithadistinctlysentimentalizedattitudetowardthe past. Sabra’s racism has been transformed by comfortable success into nostalgic regret. Her eulogy to her husband as a liberal man ahead of histimehonorsthepowerofanindividualtoinfluencehisgovernment’s policy.AsSabraremarksproudly,thegovernmenthasdoneexactlywhat hewantedintheend,andNativeAmericansarenowU.S.citizens.But aretheOsagebetteroff?Sinceoilwasdiscoveredontheirland,theyhave becomesomeofthestate’swealthiestinhabitants,drivingaroundOsage in Packards and Rolls-Royces, the women wearing tribal blankets and jewelryovertheirParisgowns.AretheyassimilatedU.S.citizensoraselfdeterminingOsagenation?EstabrookandRugglesdeliberatelycreateda conflictedvisualplaceforNativeAmericansinmodernsociety. Inthatsamesequence,Sabraalsoremembersthatthelasttimeshe had any news of her husband was when a soldier reported seeing him fightingatChateau-Thierry,hishairdyedblacktodisguisehisage.Has America’sinvolvementintheFirstWorldWar(1917–1918)becomean extensionofthefrontierintheAmericanmythicconsciousness?Theborder skirmishes, repossession of territory, bloody conflict, and racialized propagandaareabittergenealogyforamereescapistfrontiermyth.In 1926,LewisMumforddrewadeliberateconnectionbetweenthesterile mythsoftheWestandthedevastatingrealizationofthenewfrontiersin FranceandFlanders.Becauseofthepervasivenessofthefrontieridea, “OnefindsthatthemythofthePioneerConquesthadtakenpossessionof eventhefinerandmoresensitiveminds:theyacceptedtheuglinessand brutalitiesofpioneering,evenasmanyofourcontemporariesaccepted thebestialitiesofwar.60HistorianDavidKennedywouldlaterconnectthe frontiersoftheWestandtheGreatWar,alludingtoWillaCather’sOne
48 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
ofOurs(1922)ascontemporaryevidenceofthisfeeling.61EdnaFerber’s decision to make Yancey a war veteran may be a reflection of Cather’s frequentfrontierdoughboyprotagonists(TomOutlandinTheProfessor’s Houseisyetanother),butCimarron’sfilmmakersdeliberatelytransformed Ferber’spassingnarrativementionoftheworldwarintodialoguebetween Sabraandherprinter.62Yancey’sparticipationintheGreatWarisperhaps,asfarasSabraisconcerned,justanothercrusadeofhererranthusband,butitmaybethefilmmakers’indirectcritiqueofanagingfrontier mythwhoseideasofnobleconquestlockedthenationintothebitterestof wars.ThebloodyandironicdescentofYancey’sfrontierheritageseemsto overshadowSabra’sgrowinghistoricalconsciousness. The final text insert occurs in 1930, when Sabra, now a congresswoman at a political banquet, again echoes Yancey’s overblown expansionistrhetoricasahistoricalexplanationforOklahoma’spast.However, sheradicalizesherspeechbyemphasizingfemalepioneers,notingatthe beginningofheraddress:“ThewomenofOklahomahavehelpedbuild aprairiewildernessintothestateoftoday.”Thisfeministtonecameata timewhentraditionalvaluesandtheauthorityofthepioneerpatriarch were in dispute. By 1930, the citizens of Oklahoma were some of the firstAmericanstoexperiencethepinchoftheGreatDepression.Month by month, the reality of unemployment and poverty materialized, but EstabrookandRugglesmadenodirectallusiontothecrisis.Perhapsin omittingdefeat,Cimarronultimatelyresolvesitsconflictedearlyhistory andsanctionsamythofAmericanprogress.Onecouldalsospeculatethat whenFerberwroteCimarronin1929,theDepressionhadnothappened, andthatEstabrookandRugglesmerelystucktothebook.YetCimarron’s filmmakersdeliberatelytookthediegesisbeyondthestockmarketcrashto 1930.Didtheybelievethattheywerecreatingausablepastandamythic narrativeconclusionthatwouldhelpthenationdealwitheconomicdefeat?Thesearedifficultquestions;noconferencememosexistdetailing RKO’sfeelingsabouttheending.Yetthefeastisapoliticalcelebrationfor Sabra.ThefactthatshewaselectedduringtheDepressionmaysignify thecountry’simaginedneedforpioneerstoleadit,butitalsosuggeststhat malepioneershavefailedtoextricatethestatefromitspresenteconomic crisis.IfSabraisoneofthosewhooversawthegrowthofOklahomafrom prairiewildernesstostatehood,perhapssheisalsotheonetorebuildthe demoralizedstate. Shortly after Yancey’s death in an Oklahoma oil field, the film concludes at the unveiling ceremony for a statue commemorating the OklahomaPioneer.Naturally,thesubjectisacolossusofYanceyinhis
TheNewAmericanHistory 49
broad-brimmedhatandPrinceAlbertcoat.Hishandrestsonthebuttof hisgun,andayoungIndiancrouchesbehindhim,asifseekingshelterin Yancey’s enormous shadow. Cimarron’s projection of Oklahoma’s elegy tothepioneer,amythicsymbol,isironic.Yancey,ahistoricfigureinthe narrative,hasbecomeanabstracthero,alarger-than-life,flawlessstatue embodyingsociety’sperceptionofthepassingofanage.ThemanwhorepeatedlydispossessedtheOklahomatribesoftheirlandandevendenied hisownmixedNativeAmericanheritage,whilestillactingasafriendto theoppressed,hasbecomebytheendofthefilmthesavioroftheweak. Popularhistoryhaswrittenhimasahero.Thefinalshotsoftheunveiled monumentarenotsimplythefilmmakers’patrioticcoda;rather,Yancey’s heroicstatuebelongstoanarrativestructurethatconsistentlydrawsattentiontothepresentgeneration’stransformationofthepast.
RKOandthePerilsofCriticalSuccess RKO’sgamblewithasophisticatedhistoricalfilmpaidoff.Estabrookand RugglesproducedanAmericanhistoricalfilmthatdominatedeverymajorpolloftheyear’sbestfilms.63CimarronwouldevenwintheAcademy AwardforBestPictureandBestScreenplay.IftheAcademy’srecognition couldbeconsideredamarkerforafilm’s“seriousness”asart,thensurely Cimarronsucceeded.Forthenextsixtyyears,itwouldbetheonlywesterntogarnersuchaccolades,despitethegenre’sacceleratingpopularity. Although some of the film’s reviewers recalled the uneasy reception of The Big Trail, the majority understood Cimarron’s rigorously historical structureandcontentasanadvanceinthehistoryofAmericancinema, ratherthanasanarrativeflaw.64RobertSherwoodwasecstatic:“TheexcellenceofCimarronisfurtherproofthatthemovieisthenationalartof America.”65Inhiscolumn,RichardWattsJr.introducedtheideathatthe filmwasfarbetterashistorythanFerber’shistoricalnovelor,potentially, anywrittenhistory.Ifhehadanycriticismofthefilm,“itisonlybecause thegenuinebrillianceoftheproductionmakestheslightdissatisfaction arousedbythephotoplaybothpuzzlingandworthyofcarefulconsideration.”66Ferber’sfictionalromanceandbowdlerizedWest,whichDorothy Van Doren pictured as ideal for a large-scale motion picture, were actually,forWatts,theleastappealingqualitiesofthehistoricalfilm.For Watts,Cimarron’scomplexuseofwesternhistorymadeitasuccess.Itwas certainlyararemomentwhenaNewYorkfilmcriticbelievedthathistory couldtaketheplaceoftheconventionalHollywoodnarrative. Ironically, the newest medium for representing the past, and one
50 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
ProducerWilliam K.LeBaron,art directorMaxRee, andscreenwriter HowardEstabrook (farright)receive AcademyAwards frompresenter andU.S.Vice PresidentCharles Curtis.(Author’s collection)
denigrated and resented by traditional writers of history, was projecting areadingofwesternhistorythatchallengedboththecredibilityoftraditionalhistoriographyandrevisionisthistorians’inabilitytosynthesizethe past.CarlBeckerwasthemostprominentacademichistoriantorecognizeprofessionalhistory’sneedtoreconcileitselftoapopularaudience. His1931addresstotheAmericanHistoricalAssociationoccurredseveral monthsafterCimarron’srelease.Heasserted,“Thehistorythatliesinunreadbooksdoesnoworkintheworld.Thehistorythatdoesworkinthe world,thehistorythatinfluencesthecourseofhistory,islivinghistory, that pattern of remembered events, whether true or false, that enlarges andenrichesthecollectivespeciouspresent,thespeciouspresentofMr. Everyman.”67AlthoughBeckersaidlittleofcinema,undoubtedlythisultimateformofpopularhistorywouldbeMr.Everyman’schoice.Yetwith Cimarron,cinemahadpenetratedtherealmofacademichistoryandled itspopularaudienceawayfromtheculturalcomfortofmythsandintoa complicatedandhithertounchartedhistoricalterritory.WhilecontemporaryacademicspickedawayattheisolatedinadequaciesofTurner’sthesis andtraditionalwesternhistoriography,apopularnovelandanevenmore popularfilmarticulatedapersuasivenewwaytolookatthepast.Curiously, the film’s structure and historical concerns seem to have anticipatedthe“NewWesternHistory”ofthelatetwentiethcentury.68In1931, CimarronpresentedamultiracialandethnicWest;itelevatedminorities topositionsofpowerwithinthenarrative;anditgaveNativeAmericans
TheNewAmericanHistory 51
avoiceincreatingthehistoricalrecord.Thefilmalsoarticulatedathoroughandprolongedcritiqueoftheacceptedhistoriography;itinterrogatedtherhetoricoftraditionalwrittenhistorywithimagesthatcounteracted andevendeniedtheomniscienceofthewrittenword.Yetunlikemuchof thelate-twentieth-centuryhistoriographythatechoedthedivisiverhetoric ofpost-structuralismandthepostmodernsuspicionofnarrativehistoriography,Cimarronmanagedtoretainahistoricalcomplexitywithoutsacrificingacoherentsynthesisofhistoricalchange.Itcouldtellonestory withmanyvoices,combiningacriticalhistoricalviewpointwithalucid historicalsynthesis. Yearslater,documentaryfilmmakerandhistorianPaulRothawould rememberthefilmas“theAmericancinema’soneaccuratestudyofsocial history.”69RotharespondedtobothCimarron’ssocialrichnessanditshistoricalaccuracy,qualitiesthatrecallthedocumentarytraditionhehelped createandhistoricize.Althoughhesaidnothingaboutthehistoricalfilm’s potentialasanonfiction,documentarymode,Rotha’srarepraisecertainlyraisesquestionsabouthistoricalfilms’potentialfordocumentinghistoryoutsidetherealmofclassicalHollywoodfictionfilmmaking.Asfilm criticThorntonDelehantyconcludedin1931,“Cimarronhassetamark forpicturesofitskindwhich,itisnothardtobelieve,mayneverbehit again.”70Unfortunately,Delehanty’sremarkwouldhauntAmericanhistoricalfilmmaking.Attheendofthedecade,filmhistorianLewisJacobs creditedthefilmwithinauguratingalong-termcycleofAmericanhistoricalfilms,andastimepassed,Hollywoodexecutivesandtradepaperstried tojustifybig-budgethistoricalandwesternfilmsbyinvokingCimarron’s memory.71Thefilm’snamebecameasortoftalismanforartisticachievementinanindustrytraditionallycreditedwithashortmemory,although itisarguablewhethertheseensuingfilmsapproximatedCimarron. Certainlythecircumstancessurroundingthefilm’sproductionwere unique.EstabrookandRuggleswereresponsibleforCimarron’sunusual unionofnarrativecoherenceandhistoricalcomplexity,butRKOcould notaffordanotherartisticsuccess.InspiteofthefactthatCimarronmade $1.38millionforRKOintheworstindustrialyearoftheGreatDepression,thestudiohadspent$1.5milliontoproduceit.72Executivesreplaced WilliamLeBaronwithDavidO.Selznick,son-in-lawofMetro-GoldwynMayer mogulLouisB.Mayer.WesleyRugglesleft RKO to direct Mae West and Carole Lombard vehicles; it would be nine years before he madeanotherhistoricalwestern,Columbia’sArizona(1940). Estabrook,meanwhile,remainedatRKO,collectedhisOscar,and triedtowritehisnextproject,TheConquerors,withoutinterference.But
52 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
hisdaysasthesoleauthorofafilmscriptwerelimited.Estabrookhad experiencedwhatfewscreenwriterseverattained:extensiveandunusualpowerincreatingaprestigiousandinfluentialfilm.WithCimarron’s release, the press concentrated almost exclusively on Estabrook as the film’s author. London’s Graphic did an in-depth interview with him entitled “Writer’s Gold in Hollywood.” Estabrook wrote articles for the HollywoodReporterthatcreditedthefilmwithgeneratingarenewedinterest in American history.73 “In almost every city where Cimarron has been exhibited,” he wrote, “the interest aroused in its historical theme has been reflected in a demand for volumes dealing with this page of Americanhistory.”Hewassuddenlythemostprominentscreenwriterin HollywoodandaninfluentialAmericanhistorianwiththewidestpublic imaginable.HehadbecomeMr.Everyman’shistorian.ButCimarronwas alsohisnemesis.Havingadaptedandsubtlytransformedotherpeople’s work,Estabrooknowwantedtowritehisownhistoricalscreenplay.His next script, The March of a Nation (later retitled The Conquerors), was looselybasedonaseriesofSaturdayEveningPostarticlesaboutAmerica’s nineteenth-centuryfinancialhistory.PerhapsthedeepeningDepression affectedhim,orperhapsthesurgeofpublicrecognitionalteredhiscriticaljudgment,butEstabrooknowwantedtogetamessageacrosstothe public.TheMarchofaNation,conceivedasanepisodicstoryofaNew Yorkfinancialfamily,focusedontheAmericanpeople’shistorictriumphs overaseriesoffinancialcrises(1873–1929).74Historywouldnowserve theneedsofcontemporaryevents.AshewroteinanearlydraftinDecember 1931, “There was a severe financial panic in each period. . . . Bysimplyportrayingpersonalizedhistorythroughthedailylivesofour characters,weshowthatthereverseisalwaystrue...thenationalways sweeps forward with strides of new prosperity, new developments, new inventions,togreaterheightsthanever—therecordofhistoryprovesit.” Estabrookevenplannedtofilmeachepisode,orhistorical“transition,” withshotsofamanperusinganenormoushistorybook.Forexample,a shotofavenerableoldbookwiththedate“1873”wouldbefollowedbya close-upofarelevantengraving. ThiswasjustthetypeofhistoricalpompositythatSelznickdespised. Hisresponseaweeklaterwassimply,“Flat!”HackwritersRobertLord andHumphreyPearsonwerehiredtochangeEstabrook’spetepic.Eventually,SelznickandcrankyactiondirectorWilliamWellmanrevamped Estabrook’sepicantidotetotheDepressionintoacheaperandmorepugnaciousversionofCimarron.Estabrook’smultiracialWestandherowere gone,asweretheironictextinsertsandthepreciseuseofdates.Instead,
TheNewAmericanHistory 53
Czech émigré Slavko Vorkapich was hired to make a series of newspaper montages to cover holes in the narrative. Vorkapich, with possibly lessinterestinAmericanhistorythanSelznick,replacedmostoftheprojectedtextwithaseriesofimagesdisplayingrisingandfallingcolumnsof money.75EvenwithRichardDixplayingthelead,thefilmfailed.Both SelznickandtheyoungWellmanhadaconventionalviewoftheWest; triumphant white “conquerors” interested them more than America’s “Cimarron”past. Cimarron’simpactonAmericanhistoricalcinemawasnotconfinedto thecrudereworkingofitsnationalhistoricalframework,onedepictingthe developmentofoneplace’stransformationfromterritorytostate.In1932, ClaraBowmadeacomebackinsoundfeaturesinCallHerSavage,playinganillegitimatehalf–NativeAmericanheiresswhosestruggleagainst thesocialandsexualconventionsofthewhiteworlddrivesherbackto herIndianroots.AlsoatParamount,CecilB.DeMille’sstorydepartment moved away from ancient history and began to generate treatments of BenjaminFranklinandWildBillHickok’scareers.AndatWarnerBrothers,producerDarrylZanuckbegantoexperimentwithmodernAmerican biographiesandhistories.In1932hesupervisedbothTheMouthpiece,a screenbiographyoffamousNewYorkmoblawyerWilliamFallon,and SilverDollar,abiographyofnineteenth-centuryfrontiersmanandminer H.A.W.Tabor.Inthelatterfilm,basedonapopularbiographybyDavid Karsner,Zanuckhadoriginallyplannedtousetherealhistoricalnames, butfreshfromlegaltroublewithFallon’sdaughteroverTheMouthpiece’s allegedslanderousportrayal,hegrudginglydecidedtochangethenames, since“thecentralfiguredoesdeserthiswifeandchildandlivewithanotherwomanforfourteenyearsbeforefinallymarryingher.”“Haw”Tabor was an obscure figure, neither a Lincoln nor a Billy Bonney, and the alterationwouldnotbenoticed.76ItwasoneofHollywood’sfirstconflicts betweencensorshipandhistoricaltruthinthesoundera.HarveyThew wrotethemajorityofthescript,mixinghistoricaldetailandtextsuperimpositions with a complex and frequently satirical portrayal of Tabor (renamed Yates Martin). Paul Green also worked on early versions but complainedtoassistantproducerLucienHubbardthatThew’streatment wastoocriticaloftheirhero’spompousfrontierrhetoric.HesawSilver Dollarasaeulogy,“symbolicofagreatmovementwhichopenedupthe lastAmericanfrontier,”andTabor(Martin)asagreathero,honoredby themajorpoliticiansandbusinessmenofhisday.Greenbelievedthatit was“poorgraceinuswhotrytotellhisstorytomakeafoolandcharlatan outofhimandhisfollowers.”77
54 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
ButZanuckthoughtthatthisantihero’sflaws—hisbrashself-motivation, hisstridentAmericanismandcomparisonsbetweenhimselfandLincoln, hiscapacitytomakemistakesandtobedefeatedbyhistoricaleventsbeyondhiscontrol—madehisstoryworthtellingonscreen.Atonepoint, MartinstridesinfrontofanornatelyframedportraitofafamousAmerican, temporarily upstaging and replacing this traditional hero with his overblown,livingimage.Ofcourse,Martin“frames”himselfonlytemporarilyasahero;shortlyafterward,heembarksonapersonalandprofessionaldecline,figuratively“framing”himselfwhenhetakesLilyashis mistress. Zanuck also liked the man’s cultural iconoclasm, his hostility tothewealthyintellectualelites.ZanuckandactorEdwardG.Robinson suggestedasceneinwhichMartinwouldsurveyhisnewlyconstructed DenverOperaHouseandstarewithblankincomprehensionatthefancy bustsofShakespeareandSocratesliningthewalls.“Askthemwhoinhell they are and what did they do for Denver!” he roars, commanding the workmentoreplacethemwithbustsofUlyssesS.GrantandEdwinMcMastersStanton,Americanfigures.78Zanuckandhisteamoffilmmakers seemedtoenjoyaddingscenesofhistoricalimport:Martin’ssecondmarriage,withPresidentChesterA.Arthurinattendance;thedateoftheoperahouseopening;andtheannouncementofhisbrieftenureassenator. SilverDollartookseveralmonthstocomplete—anunusualoccurrence atthethriftyWarnerBrothers—andafteranOctoberpreview,itopened inDecember. WarnerBrothers’majorhistoricalprestigepictureof1932receiveda greatdealofcriticalpraise,muchofitevocativeofCimarron.Thornton Delehantysaidthatithad“truehistoricalsense,”RichardWattscalledit an “admirable screen contribution to the current nostalgic rediscovery oftheoldAmerica,”andMordauntHalloftheNewYorkTimessawan emergingpatternofHollywoodproduction,namingSilverDollarpartofa new“cycle”inHollywood.79Infact,SilverDollarwasonlythebeginning oftheAmericanhistoricalcycle;asurgeofprestigioushistoricalcinema followed Cimarron’s release, and those films made during the next ten yearswouldpracticeitstechniquesoftheforeword,theprojectedtextinsert,theuseofextensiveresearch,andtheemploymentofonedominant screenwriter. The industry and national critics would repeatedly honor thesefilms,buttheirbox-officeappealwaserratic.Someweresuccesses, butallwereexpensive,oftenfailing(ascriticspredicted)tomakeuptheir costsevenwithgoodattendance. SuchwasSilverDollar.Whenthefilmfailedtoretrieveitslossesin theholidayseason,Zanuckwasirritatedwiththepublic.In1929Robert
TheNewAmericanHistory 55
Sherwoodhadpredictedthatprestigepicturescreatedbythesound-era “Renaissance” in Hollywood would enable producers to “thumb their noses at the rabble.”80 By 1932, Zanuck was realizing the cost of such gestures.TwoyearslaterhecouldjoketoJohnHustonthat“SilverDollar madetheartisticandbox-officemistakeoftakingitselftooseriously.Itwas theGreatDrama,thegreatbaloneypictureoftheriseofagreatAmerican character.”81Buttheproducerstillmaintainedhisbusiness-riskdevotion toAmericanhistoryinthefaceofpublicapathyorstupidity.Sometimes hewasonthesideofhistoryandfilmart,andsometimeshewaswiththe rabble.Butintheearly1930sheadaptedtohistoricalfilmmaking.AstraditionalAmericanhistory,pioneers,andfrontiersreturnedtothetheaters inanewandvigorousform,Zanuckandothersfoundthatthishistorical style could be applied to the less stable topics of modern history—the Great War, urban crime and corruption, Prohibition, the Depression, gangsters, and veterans. When Zanuck made The Mouthpiece in 1932, hewaswellacquaintedwiththepitfallsoffilmingeventsandlivesofthe twentiethcentury.Slandersuitswereoftentheleastofhisproblems.
This page intentionally left blank
2
ContemporaryHistory intheAgeofScarface,1932 Soundslikeatypewriter,eh?I’mgoin’towritemynamealloverChicago withthis,incapitalletters. —TonyCamonte(AlCapone)inScarface,1932
DarrylF.ZanuckbeganworkingforWarnerBrothersin1924,andby1929 hehadmovedfromwritingRinTinTinscriptstooverseeingGeorgeArlissreprisehisstagesuccessasBenjaminDisraeli.AccordingtoArlissand WarnerBrothers’publicitydepartment,Disraeli’shistoricalcontentwas intendedto“increasetheprestigeoftalkingpictures.”1Criticsagreedand were pleasantly surprised that a major studio was not always interested inthatclassicoxymoron,the“publictaste.”Varietypraisedthefilmand sniggered,“Someofthepeasantswon’tgetthesmartnessorappreciatethe subtleshadesoftheArlisstechnique,nottomentionaplotthatconcerns thediplomaticimperativenessofpossessingtheSuezCanal.”2Thefact that Disraeli was so obviously not intended as standard box-office fare intriguedreviewers,whocouldnowactasculturalintermediariesfor“the peasants.”WithmoreprestigeproductionssuchasDisraeli,filmcriticism alsohadanewcachet.BackinHollywood,thefilmembellishedZanuck’s reputation,andinearly1931hebegantoplanArliss’sAlexanderHamilton,anotherplaythattheactorhadcoauthoredwithMaryHamlin.3 ThiswouldbeArliss’sfirstroleasanAmericaninaHollywoodfilm. The play and the script were painstaking endorsements of Hamilton’s senseofmoralandpoliticalhonor,apersonalcodeatoddswiththatofhis 57
58 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
DarrylF.Zanuck atWarnerBrothers, ca.1930.
invidiousandrabble-rousingcolleagueThomasJefferson.Shotinaseries ofstatictableaux,AlexanderHamiltonwasreleasedinSeptember1931. WhereasDisraeli’sold-fashioned“starringvehicle”prestigehadsucceeded in 1929, by 1931, neither critics nor audiences were impressed. Althoughmanynoteditspretentious,epigrammatichistoricaltone,thefilm contained few text inserts and instead gave most of the historical commentary to Arliss in excruciatingly long speeches. The New York Sun’s John S. Cohen Jr. and Richard Watts of the New York Herald Tribune comparedthefilm’sretellingofhistoricaleventstoClaudeG.Bowers’s recentbiographyofJeffersonandhiscolleagues,butthecomparisonwas not flattering. The critical consensus was that the Arliss biography was “lifeless and slow-moving,” its historical perspective “conventional” or mere“melodrama.”Watts’sreviewechoedPotamkin’scriticismofAbrahamLincolnthesummerbefore:“Astudyofthefilm’sdialoguesuggests that,iftheArlissworkistruetohistory,ourforefathersweresomewhat giventotalkingincopy-bookmaximsinColonialdays.”4Thefilmmakershadfailedtomanipulatelanguageasameansofengagingwithhistory.EvenVariety,knowntobemorecharitabletotheindustry’sattempts at highbrow filmmaking, was disgusted with its historical pretensions.5 ThoughArlisswouldmakeafewmorebiographicalfilmsforZanuckat TwentiethCentury–Fox,heneveragainventuredintoAmericanhistory. AlexanderHamiltonwasoneofthefewconspicuousfailuresthatZanuckproducedwhileatWarnerBrothers.BecauseofArliss’sdictatorial controloverhisscripts,theproducerwaspreventedfromgettinginvolved in the literary process he enjoyed so much: editing. But Zanuck, who
ContemporaryHistoryintheAgeofScarface 59
would later become famous at his own studio for monitoring every aspectofafilm’sproduction,hadhismindonotherprojectswhileAlexander Hamilton was slowly developing in early 1931. At that time, he wasdeeplyinvolvedinoverseeingtheproductionofJohnBrightandKubecGlasmon’snovelBeerandBlood.ThePublicEnemy,asitwassoon retitled, would be Zanuck’s first major American historical film. With itsdepictionofProhibition,gangsters,andcrookedcopsoftheRoaring Twenties,theproducerdidnothavetoworryaboutunfortunatecomparisonsbetweenhisfilmandmoreestablished,respectableformsofhistoriography.Infact,withaneagernationalaudience,matchlesspublicity venues,andagroupof“historicalexperts,”hecouldeffectivelycontrol thedevelopmentofmodernAmericanhistoriography. CanThePublicEnemybecalledahistoricalfilm?Fewscholarshave beenwillingtoconsiderthegangsterasahistoricalfigureandtheclassic sound-eragangsterfilms(DoorwaytoHell,1930;LittleCaesar,1931;The PublicEnemy,1931;Scarface,1932)asdeliberatelyconstructedinterpretations of postwar American history.6 Such an admission would violate two major traditions in film scholarship and cultural history: that early gangsterfilmswerestrictlymoderngenresubjects,andthereforecould notbehistoricalfilms;andthatclassicalHollywoodfilmmakerswereunconscious mythmakers, their work lacking the necessary textual depth, historicalevidence,argument,andcriticaldistancethatmoretraditionalwritersofhistorypossessed.7Forthepasthalfcentury,academicand popular criticism of the classical Hollywood gangster film has followed the guidelines of Robert Warshow’s “The Gangster as Tragic Hero.”8 Warshow’s emphasis on gangster cinema’s mythic narrative formula, its inescapablemodernity,anditsparadoxicalreflectionandsubversionof the American Dream has become the organizing principle of classical Hollywoodgenrestudies,filmandculturalhistories,andinvestigationsof censorshipandethnicity.9 Althoughmanyfilmhistorianshaverecognizedthatthegangsterfilm “questioned the very foundation of American society,” film studies preferredtoregardthegangsterinclassicalHollywoodcinemaaspartofa genreformulaandaninescapablereflectionofmodernlife.10His“subversion,”howevermodern,representedmerelytheopposingforceinthe binaryparadigmofmyth.GarthJowett,CarlosClarens,RichardMaltby, andJonathanMunbyeachcontextualizedthegangsterfilm’srepresentationofethnicheroesandtheresultingpubliccontroversyandcensorship campaigns, but within their interpretive framework, these remain inescapably modern battles in which the gangster serves as a reflective site
60 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
ofcontemporarysocialantagonism.11Curiously,evenasacontroversial figuredestabilizing“themythofAmerica,”thegangsterhasremainedan uncharacteristicallypassiveandnamelessfigure,asetofmirrorsbetween publiclifeandpubliccultureoftheinterwaryears.12 In addition, these modern narratives of crime and corruption may seemirreconcilablewiththereverentialtrajectoriesofWesternprogress andAmericanbiography,andtheymayseemtoorecentforZanuck’sgeneration to consider them as legitimate subjects of history. But as early asthe1930s,avarietyofAmericanhistoriansconsideredtheimpactof thegangster—inparticular,AlCapone—ontheconstructionofAmerican history. Academic and popular historians struggled to exclude and toplacepostwarAmericaanditsmajorfigureswithinthegrandnarrative ofAmericanhistory,butZanuck,JohnBright,BenHecht,andHoward Hughesprominentlyengagedwithtwentieth-centuryhistoryintheirattemptstostructureeventsoften,five,orevenoneyearearlierwithinthe discourseofanemerginghistoricalcinema.
ModernHistory’sDoorwaytoHell Filmsaboutcontemporarycrimeandfictionalgangstershadbeenpopular sinceD.W.Griffith’sMusketeersofPigAlley(1913),butitwasonlyinthe late1920s,andwiththeconversiontosound,thathigh-profilegangster filmsbegantoscriptthehistoricaltrajectoryofcrimeandadvertisethe livesofrealgangstersandbootleggers.ThisdesiretocaptureanddocumenttherealaspectsofChicagoandotherpostwarelementsofAmerican lifegrewasthepublicrecognizedtheirimpendingobliterationbythelaw. Capone’serawasending.Manyofthemorefamousgangstersweredead, injail,orincourt.The1920shadpassedsoquicklythatalreadyitsmost famous newspaper personalities were becoming relics. Journalists such asWalterNobleBurns,FredPasley,andJohnBrighthadspentsomany yearscoveringChicagocrimestoriesthattheynowtransformedtheminto histories(Burns’sTheOne-WayRide)andbiographies(Pasley’sAlCapone andBright’sHizzonerBigBillThompson).13EvenanacademiclikePrestonWilliamSlossonwaswillingtowriteahistoryofthepostwarera.14But Zanuck’sfirsthistoricalgangsterfilms,DoorwaytoHellandLittleCaesar, werenotmerelyreflectionsofmoretraditionalhistorians’awarenessofa passingera.Instead,theywerethemostpowerfulpartofthisfirstwaveof postwarhistoriography,engageddirectlywithquestionsofobjectivity,the boundarybetweenjournalismandhistory,andthesubversiverecognition andportrayalofnationalheroes.
ContemporaryHistoryintheAgeofScarface 61
Professionalhistoriansseemedfarlesscomfortablewiththepostwar era.Slosson’sTheGreatCrusadeandAfter(1930)wasoneofthefew“serious”modernhistories,anditclaimedthatAmerica’spathsincethewar hadbeentransformed,ifnotscarred,bytheforcesofmodernity.Editors ArthurM.SchlesingerandDixonRyanFoxbothcommentedonthedifficultyfacinganyhistorianattemptingtowritea“‘contemporaryhistory,’” andtheypraisedSlosson’sdetachmentandstyle,which“hewouldusein chroniclingthelifeandwayofanypreviousgeneration.”Yetthepostwar eraanditspeoplewerenotlikeanypreviousgeneration.Despitethemoderngeneration’sunprecedentedaccesstonews,Slossonsadlyremarked thattheAmericanpressandpublictalkedwithmoreanimationaboutthe “crimewave”thanthepoliticalscandalsoftheHardingadministration.15 Asahistorian,heclaimedtograpplewith“theoutstandingproblems”of the postwar era—Prohibition, immigration, and the speedy transformationofmodernlifetomodernhistory—buthewenttogreatlengthsto expungetheembodimentoftheseills,thegangster,fromhisnarrative. Slosson’s historiography, patterned after the work of Charles Beard, arrangedAmericanhistoryasaconflictingequationofeconomicandpolitical forces unhampered by individual action.16 In a postwar modern agemarkedbymechanizedmassacresandFordianefficiency,theheroic individualhadceasedtoexistasahistoricalfactor. Popularhistorianshadanotherperspective.Thesewriters,moreconnectedwithapublicaudience,wereawareofthecrucialrolethatmass culture played in defining contemporary history. Academics wrote of a seriesofimpressiveforcesandeventsthatcontrolledpostwarAmerican history:modernity,Prohibition,wealth,crime.Popularhistorianslocated thefigurewhomanipulatedallthesefactorsandshapedthedecade,satisfying a public need for both hero and villain: the gangster. Frederick Lewis Allen’s Only Yesterday (1931) not only identified the gangster as the definitive force in postwar life but also adopted a different historical approach to creating contemporary history. Films, music, fashion, crimebiographies,collegelife,leisure,andliteraturedominatedAllen’s episodichistoricalaccount.Asheacknowledgedinhispreface,“Acontemporaryhistoryisboundtobeanythingbutdefinitive...[but]half theenjoymentofwritingithaslainintheefforttoreducetosomesortof logicalandcoherentorderamassofmaterialuntouchedbyanyprevious historian.”17 Like his academic counterparts, Allen addressed the majorpolitical,economic,andsocialforcesofthedecade,buthelocated themwithinthedynamiccareerofthegangster,bestexemplifiedbyAl Capone.18Allen’sownstyleparalleledhishistoricalattitudetowardthe
62 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
postwarera:fast,vivid,kaleidoscopic,imagedriven,andstoppedonlyby theDepression. Allen’sbrandofhistoriography,thoughuniquetowrittenhistory,was alreadyapartofDarrylF.Zanuck’sworkatWarnerBrothers.Doorway toHell(1930)washisfirstgangsterfilmtofocusontheexploitsofone Chicagoprotagonist.19AlthoughknownforintroducingJamesCagneyto WarnerBrothers,DoorwaytoHell’sstarwasLewAyres,whohadjustcome fromthesetofUniversal’sAllQuietontheWesternFront.Intransferring from Universal’s set to Warner Brothers’, Ayres went from one modern battlefieldtoanother.Thecastingmayhavebeenacoincidence,butthe metaphorwaspowerfulforaudiencesin1930.Inacountrymarkedby postwardisillusionment,thegangstersofthisgenerationwereoftenreal orpretendedwarveterans.Capone,forinstance,wasfamousforclaimingthatthescarsontheleftsideofhisfacehadcomefromfightingon the Western Front. Capone’s biographer, Chicago Daily News reporter FredD.Pasley,believedthatCapone’swarexperienceintroducedhim tothemachinegunanddeterminedhisdominantroleintheChicago underworld. Walter Noble Burns, however, was more skeptical of Capone’s eight months in the “Lost Battalion,” dryly commenting that in Capone’slatertestimonybeforeagrandjury,headmittedthatthescars weretheresultofaNewYorksaloonbrawlinhisyouth.20Yetothergang leaderssuchasSamuelJ.“Nails”Mortonwerewellknownasdecorated vets.21Zanuck,aGreatWarveteranhimself,hadagrowingpenchantfor ransackingnewspapersforprospectivescreenstories,andhewouldhave beenfamiliarwiththemanypostwarjournalistswhoexplicitlyconnected theriseofthegangsterwithGreatWarviolence.DoorwaytoHell’ssubtle awarenessofthesehistoricalconnectionspredatedBurns’suseofthismaterialbyoverayear.22 Werethesevariouswriterscommentingonthelegacyofthecorruptionofheroism,avariationof“thegreatcrusadeandafter”?Orwerethe gangwarsofChicagoanaturalresultofthedisplacementandneglectof the American veteran? The veteran, once a powerless doughboy at the mercy of machinery and possible massacre in no-man’s-land, was now literallybehindthemachineryofcrime.By1926hecarriedhisownmachinegun,oftengavehisownorders,startedhisownwars,andfoughtfor histurfwiththetoolsandtraininghehadlearnedonanotherfront. CrimebossJohnnyTorriowasnotaveteran,butRolandBrown’soriginalstory,“AHandfulofCloud,”looselyfollowedTorrio’sriseandfalland formedthebasisofDoorwaytoHell.23Zanuckwasobviouslyfascinated withtheideaofadaptingmodernhistoryforthescreen,buteventhough
ContemporaryHistoryintheAgeofScarface 63
Torrio’sstorywastornfromtheheadlines,theywereyesterday’sheadlines. By1930CaponehadreplacedhimasheadofSouthSidevice;Torriowas nowpartofChicago’spast.Zanuckcouldnotresistalludingtothisdevelopmentbyincorporatingimagesofhistoriographyintothescript.When LouieRicardo(LewAyres)attainsacertainstatusasapublicgangster,he getsacontracttowritehismemoirs.Thefilm’slastshotisaclose-upof thelastpageofhisautobiography,amodernhistoricalrecord.Theroar of machine guns announces the protagonist’s murder, even as the film andhistoricaltextreachthelastpageofthefinalchapter.Thefilmthus becomesavisualbiographyofRicardo,anditinauguratedZanuck’suse ofprojectedhistoricaltextsinhisgangstercycle.Likeanygoodhistorian, healsocaredaboutadvertisinghishistoricalacumen.HedirectedWarner Brothers’publicityteamtopromotethefilm’sauthenticity,evenclaiming, asUniversalhadforUnderworld(1929),thatthefilmwasabiographyof NewYorkgangsterLou“Legs”Diamond.Soonstudiopresssheetsboasted thatZanuckhadhiredrealgangsterstoactasconsultantsontheset.24 DoorwaytoHellattractedagreatdealofcriticalnoticeasaninnovative talking gangster film; critic Creighton Peet even claimed that it was“thefirstreal‘motion’picturetheWarnerBrothershavemadethis year,whatwithpunkoperettasandphotographedstageplays.”25Under Zanuck’sleadership,soundcinemahadfinallyachievedsomethingnew. ButitwasthereleaseofZanuck’snextgangsterpicture,LittleCaesar,that witnessedanewengagementwithcontemporaryhistoryandtheboundarybetweenjournalismandhistory.Itwasalsothefirstgangsterfilmto bementionedbybothFilmDailyandtheNationalBoardofReviewin theirannuallistsofthebestfeaturefilms.26Usuallytheseorganizations honoredmoretraditionalhistoricalepicsandprestigiousliteraryadaptations,suchasDisraeli(1929),AllQuietontheWesternFront(1930),and Cimarron(1931).PerhapsitmadesenseforLittleCaesartobepartofthis group.Duringtheearly1930s,studiopublicistsandcriticswereechoing and amplifying films’ historical allusions and prestigious links to traditionalhistoricalcinema.27 RobertN.LeeadaptedW.R.Burnett’snovelLittleCaesarforZanuck in1930.AlthoughthereweremanysimilaritiesbetweenAlCaponeand Burnett’s Sicilian hood Caesar Enrico Bandello, the book could in no waybeconsideredabiographyofCapone.Burnettwentoutofhisway todefendthenovel’sfictionalsubjectmatter.28Thescreenplay,however, emphasizedthe“documented”natureofRico’scareerandretainedmany oftheelementsassociatedwiththehistoricalfilm,includingthetextforeword. On film, Rico first demonstrates his cleverness by surreptitiously
64 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
LittleCaesar: Ricoalters theclock.
alteringthehandsofalunchroomclockinordertosecureanalibifor arobberyhehascommitted.Rico’smanipulationoftimeandhistorical events is in many ways analogous to the filmmakers’ transformation of Chicagogangwarsandmodernhistory.Operatingunderanincreasingly repressivecensorshipsystemthatwouldhaveattackedanyattemptatthe biographicalglorificationofarealgangster-herolikeCapone,29thefilmmakersobscuredthehistoricaldetailstosuittheirimmediateneeds.Yet thisparallelmanipulationdoesnotfooltheaudience.Thefilmoffersthe audienceamorecompleteviewofevents—onethatisdeniedtoitsparticipants(andtothecensors).RicoisaversionofCapone;heisrealand hascommittedtherobbery. Rico’sdestabilizationoftruthwouldmotivatepopularhistorians’accountsofpostwarAmericaanditspreeminentfigure,AlCapone.Heand his colleagues became the major historical figures of postwar America, andtheychangednotonlywhatappearedinprintbutalsothewayitwas written.TheassassinationofcrimelordBigJimColosimoin1920introducedanewhistoricaluncertaintytotheera,anuncomfortablemixture offactandfiction.NooneeverdiscoveredtheidentityofColosimo’skiller orthemotive,althoughbothTorrioandCapone,emblematicofthenew underworldorder,weresuspects.AccordingtopopularhistorianWalter NobleBurns,nooneknewforcertainwhetherCaponewasdirectlyresponsiblefororderingthedeathsofDionO’Bannion,HymieWeiss,John Scalisi,AlbertoAnselmi,FrankyUale,BillMcSwiggin,JohnDuffy,and JimDoherty.30Itwasaworldwherenothingcouldbeproved,wheretruth
ContemporaryHistoryintheAgeofScarface 65
wasoccludedbycontradictorytales,wherenoonesawwhathappened, wherepolice,judges,newspapermen,and,byimplication,popularhistoriansalltoldlies. Caponeandhiscolleaguessimplydefiedthetoolsofhistoriography, andpopularhistoriansofthiseracitedwrittendocumentsinmockeryof traditionalhistoriansandtheirapproaches.InhishistoryoftheChicago gangs, Burns cited two conflicting versions of Capone’s alleged role in killingAssistantState’sAttorneyWilliamMcSwigginin1926.31InFred Pasley’spopular1930biographyofCapone,hecitedofficialdocuments andnewscopyonlytopointouttheirfallibility.InCapone’sfirstnewspaperappearance,thereporterspelledhisname“AlfredCaponi”andgotthe storywrong.32Later,Pasleyquotedthefindingsoftheinquestfollowing themurderofsmall-timehoodlumJoeHoward.Althoughwitnessessaw Caponeshoothim,theylaterhada“changeofheart,”andtheintimidatedjuryrefusedtoindicthim.33Thisconflictedrelationshipbetweenthe expectationsoftraditionalhistoryandtheuntold,elliptical,oftenvague and contradictory modern history embodied by the gangster was epitomizedbyTheFingerPoints(WarnerBrothers,1931).W.R.Burnettand John Monk Saunders confronted this historical disruption by scripting thesemidisguisedcareerofChicagoreporterJakeLingle.Lingle,killed byunknownpersonsinJune1930,wasdiscoveredtohavebeeninthe employofboththe“upperworld”andtheunderworld.Areporterwho was,itturnedout,pursuingeverythingbuttruth,Linglerepresentedthe ultimatecorruptionoftheprintedwordbymunicipal government, law enforcement,andgangsters.JustasinLittleCaesar,thefilm’somniscient presentationoftheprotagonist’sincreasingcorruptioncontrastswiththe press’sbatheticmanufacturingofheadlinesclaimingnationwidemourningfora“martyr.” Althoughmanyprofessionalhistoriansweredisillusionedbywartime propagandaandthegovernment’ssuccessfulimpressmentofformerlyrespected historians as wartime “writers,” few were willing to choose the relativismofCarlBecker’sandCharlesBeard’santiheroicrevisionisthistory, where historical objectivity was an impossible ideal.34 But Burns andPasleyrealizedthatwritingabouttwentieth-centuryChicagoleftfew opportunities for traditional research and definitive conclusions. Their workignoredfootnotesandbibliography,quotedwordofmouth,presentedmultipleperspectivesonasingleevent,admittedgapsandunknown information, and mixed facts with metaphors. Pasley concluded, “The Caponepictureisneverinfocuswiththerealities.Theymergeintoitto losetheirfactualidentitiesandregularitiesofformasinaside-showdis-
66 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
tortionmirror,thentoleerbackinpreposteroustravesty,hoaxingreason andmockingthedataofcommonsense.Thepictureistheatrical.”35 EarlyinBurnett’sLittleCaesarscript,Ricoreadsanewsaccountof DiamondPete’sglamorous“underworld”party,andinhismind,herevisesthenewsheadlinesandphotographs.Laterinthefilm,“LittleCaesar”BandellowillreplaceDiamondPeteintheheadlinesandgodown inthecity’s“history.”Throughoutboththefinalscriptandthefilm,Rico consultsthepapers,checkingtheirdocumentationofhiscareer,theiraccuracy,andtheamountofinkhegetsineachissue.Shotsofnewspaper insertspunctuatethenarrative,36andalthoughthepaperisimmediate,a reminderofcontemporarylife,itisalsoaprinteddocument,atextinsert withinthefilmnarrative;itisthepostwarequivalentofcontemporaryhistoriography,sincethemajorpostwarhistoriansandCapone’sprincipalbiographerwerealsoreporters.Rico’sconstantreappraisalofthenewsisalso thefilmmakers’reappraisalofthehistory(text)ofthe1920s.ForRico,the importanceoftheprintedwordliesnotonlyinitsabilitytopublicizehis careerandfeedhisvanity;italsoprovidesamarkofpermanence,ofbeing “somebody”whoisdocumentedandamakerofhistory.Thenewspapers canmakeheroes.Naturally,Ricoisneversatisfiedwithwhathereads. Thepapersandthehistoricalrecordarealwayswrong.Atonepointin thescript,hereadsaboutthemurderofMcClure,acrimecommissioner heshotatanightclub.Accordingtothepapers,Ricowasnotrecognized (eventhisnotorietywouldhavepleasedhim),butthereportdescribesthe unknownmurdereras“asmall,unhealthy-lookingforeigner.”Ricoreacts angrily,claimingindignantlythatheisnoforeigner,justasCaponeonce didwhentoldthatnativistscondemnedhiscareerandlinkedhiscrimeriddenlifetohisItalianbackground.37Later,whenareporterasksRico howhelikedthepaper’smostrecentstoryonhim,Ricocounters,“Where doyougetthat‘Little’Caesar,Scabby?Thereain’tnothinglittleabout me.”Rico’srelationshiptothetext,thedocument,thestand-inforhistory, isoneofbothcollaboratorandcritic.Hedetermineswhattheysee,but heneverreadsthetruth.Evenhisdeathresultsfromadisputeoveracop’s printedinterviewabouttheriseandfallofLittleCaesar.
TheRisksofFilmingModernHistory JohnBrightwasoneofthefirsthistorianstousethetermrevisionistin hissatiricalbiographyofWilliam“BigBill”Thompson.ForBright,the revisionistschoolwasborninthepostwarera,whenThompsonandCaponewouldbecomesomeofthecountry’smostpublicfigures.38Thelaw,
Small-timecrook Ricoreadstheheadlines forDiamondPete. (LittleCaesar)
LittleCaesarmakes theheadlines.
Ricocheckshis presscoverage. (LittleCaesar)
68 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
officialhistories,andunbiasedpublicinformationachievedcomicdeaths duringThompson’srule.AlthoughBright’shistoricalperspectivewasnot appreciated in Chicago,39 in Hollywood, under Zanuck’s direction, he wouldbecomeoneofthemostprominentscreenwritersofthepostwar era.WarnerBrothers’pressbookandadvertisingforThePublicEnemy announcedthatthescript,basedonBrightandGlasmon’sunpublished novelBeerandBlood,dramatizedthelivesofTerryDrugganandFranky Lake,twoinventivebrewerybusinessmenwhoshottofameasassociates in Al Capone’s liquor empire.40 The Public Enemy took the form of a double biopic,positioningthecareersof“Tom”and “Matt” within the trajectoryoftwentieth-centuryAmericanhistory. Bright’ssecondchronicleofChicagocarefullydisguisedthenamesof thetwoprincipalcharacters.LakeandDrugganhadsurvivedthe1920s, andneitherBrightnorZanuckwantedaslandersuit.WhileHarveyThew adaptedtheirwork,ZanuckwasverycautiouswithregardtotheProductionCode.Thenarrative’sviolence,opendefianceofthelaw,legalcorruption,sex,androughlanguageallgavethecensorssomethingtocarp about.Inresponsetothenumerousdemandsforrevisions,Zanuckwrote toCodehenchmanJasonJoy,defendingThePublicEnemy.Hepromised thatnaturallythepicturewouldprovethemoralthat“crimedoesn’tpay,” butthenhetooktheintellectualandartistichighground,claiming,“Our pictureisgoingtobeabiographymorethanaplot.”41Zanuckattempted toprotectthefilm’sartisticintegrityfromthecensorsbyassertingPublic Enemy’shistoricalcontentandaccuracy,therebylinkingittotheartistic andintellectualprestigeoftraditionalhistoricalfilmmakingandjustifying whateverpotentiallyobjectionablecontenttheProductionCodeAdministration(PCA)found.Itwasastrategyhewouldpracticethroughouthis career.Althoughthefilmwouldnotemergeunscathed,thePCAadopted Zanuck’sattitudetowardthesubjectmatter,deemingita“moreorless correctaccount”ofChicagohistory.42 However,thisdeepeninghistoricalconsciousnessmayhavetriggered thePCA’sgrowingcriticismofgangsterfilms.ThePublicEnemywassubjecttofarmorescrutinyanddemandsforcensorshipthanZanuck’searlier efforts, Doorway to Hell and Little Caesar. The PCA undoubtedly forced Zanuck and his script polisher, Thew, to alter many of the historicalcharacterspopulatingBrightandGlasmon’sbook;AlCaponewas removedasapotentialcharacterinthefilmnarrative,aswereO’Bannion andWeiss.43YetZanuck’sfaithinthehistoricalelementsofthisfilmwas notmerecamouflageforthePCA.Zanuckinvestedthescriptwithahistoricalconsciousnessthatthenovelconspicuouslylacked.InspiteofBeer
ContemporaryHistoryintheAgeofScarface 69
andBlood’shistoricalcast,ithadnohistoricalexpositionoranalysis,and conversationswereunmarkedbytime,place,ordetail.Asfilmhistorian HenryCohenremarked,itwas“personalencounterindialogueandincident.”44 UnderZanuck’ssupervision,BeerandBloodbecameahistoricalfilm, containingatextualstructureofinsertsandsuperimpositionstobolsterthe narrative.Thestructureofitsbiographyispunctuated,or“chapterized,” byaseriesoftextinsertssuperimposedovershotsofChicagoconsistingof yearsinthecity’shistory:1909,1915,1917,and1920.45Eventhefirstshot ofthefilmisanenormousinsertof“1909,”followedbyarchivalfootageof thecity,theLoop,StateStreet,andtheUnionStockyards.AlthoughRKO hadpioneeredthesound-erauseofmultipletextinsertsanddatesuperimpositionsinCimarron,releasedinJanuary,thatfilmwasinmanywaysthe ultimate traditional American historical film—a chronicle of westward expansionandpioneersfrom1889to1930.Zanuck’sappropriationofthis structureforThePublicEnemyindicatesthatheplacedpostwargangsters and crime within a historical process. Most important, for a twentiethcentury“historical”narrative,archivalfilmfootagehasthesamestatusof historicaldocumentationasthetextofanewspaperorasuperimposeddate. ButthisperiodfootageisalmostindistinguishablefromWellman’s“fictional”footage;thereisnodifferencebetweentheshotsofearly-morningcommutersandtheLoopandtheshotsofTom(JamesCagney)hustlingbeer. Inthetextofthefilm,botharepartofChicago’shistory. The press noticed Zanuck’s transformation of Hollywood’s gangster cycle.Varietywrote,“It’slow-browmaterialgivensuchworkmanshipas to make it high-brow.”46 The gangster picture had entered the prestige
Establishingtheperiod inThePublicEnemy, 1931.
Documentaryshotsof Chicago:StateStreet. (ThePublicEnemy)
TheUnionStockyards. (ThePublicEnemy)
Warisdeclared,butTom andMattareoblivious. (ThePublicEnemy)
ContemporaryHistoryintheAgeofScarface 71
leagueofthehistoricalfilm.Thereviewerdrewattentiontothehistoricalstructureofthefilm,listingthehistoricalprogressionandtheuseof dateinserts.Thelasttwoinserts(1917and1920)specificallyreferredto majoreventsinAmericanhistoryandthemaincharacters’rejectionof theirimport:AmericanentranceintotheFirstWorldWar,andratification of theVolsteadActsanctioningProhibition.Tom and Matt ignore andthenscornthepatriotismofthewarandmakeakillingofftheirdefianceofthegovernmentduringProhibition.Significantly,afterTomand Mattconsolidatetheirbeerindustryandparticipateinafull-blownbeer racketrunbyNailsNathanandPaddyRyan,theinserts,emblematicof theconstraintsofhistoricalnarrativeandtheboundariesoftimeandhistory,disappear.AttheheightofProhibitionandtheChicagogangwars, timeandthetraditionalstructuraltrappingsofhistoricalcinemasimply vanishintheglareofthepostwarera. LateinPublicEnemy’sproduction,Zanuck,incollusionwithThew, Bright,andGlasmon,addedonemoreelement:aprojectedtextforeword resemblingthosebeginningmoretraditionalhistoricalandbiographical filmsubjectsofthatera(TheGreatMeadow,Cimarron,AlexanderHamilton).Thesetextinsertsnotonlyjustifiedthefilms’historicalsignificance andaccuracybutalsolentthenarrativesahistoricalprestigeandstructuralparitywithtraditionalwrittenhistory.EventhoughPublicEnemy’s forewordassertedthefilm’saccuracy,itwasunusuallycautious.Ittestified thattheplotdepictedaparticularphaseand“environment”inAmerican lifeanddidnotintendtoglorifythelifeofthecriminal,butthenitcontinued,“WhilethestoryofThePublicEnemyisessentiallyatruestory, allnamesandcharactersappearingherein,arepurelyfictional.”47Again, Americanfilm,likeitsganglandsubjects,wasunderthecensoriouseye of the government. Filmmakers, now under the stricter surveillance of WillHays—presidentoftheMotionPictureProducersandDistributors ofAmerica(MPPDA),authorandenforceroftheCode—hadtobecarefulthattheirhistoricalaccuracydidnotglorifycrime.Ironically,theonly recoursefilmmakershadwastoremovetheoriginalexplosivehistorical contentoratleastmodifyit.Buttheforeword’shalfheartedconcessionto thecensors,stressingthefilm’sstatusascontemporaryfiction,wascompletelysubvertedbyitsclaimstotruthandtheopeningshot—thelooming specificityof“1909.”SavvyfilmreviewerssawthroughtheCode-imposed subterfuges.CriticWilliamBoehnelcommented,“Anyonewhohasread ofChicago’sunderworldwillrecognizecharactersandincidentsimmediately.”48Boehnelalsonoticedthatthefilmnarrativecontainedaplethora ofhistoricaldetails,suchasthefamousshootingofNailsMorton’shorse,
72 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
Mummifying thegangster. (ThePublic Enemy)
thatwerenotstrictlynecessarytothestorybutaddedtotheaudience’s identificationofChicago’srecentpast.49 LikemanyofthepopularhistoriesoftheProhibitionera,ThePublic Enemy makes an analogy between America’s involvement in the Great WarandtheVolsteadliquorwarsthatfollowed.TomandhisolderbrotherMikeembodythisconnection.After“1917”issuperimposedoverthe screenandfades,Tomisfirstbewilderedandthencontemptuouswhen he learns that his sanctimonious brother has joined up to fight in the warfordemocracy.TomstayshomeandgetsrichlinkingupwithPaddy andNails,whilehisveteranbrothercomeshomefromthewar,stillpale andpriggish,toplugawayatasmalljob.Earlier,Tomhadsneeredthat byattendingnightschoolafterwork,hisbrotheris“learningtobepoor.” YetMikeretainsonethingfromhiswarexperiencethatwillhelphimin Chicago:grenades.Inthefinalminutesofthefilm,Tomisshotandkilled byarivalgang,evidentlypayingforhiscrime(unliketherealTerryDruggan,wholivedinluxurythroughthewars),andhismurderersdropoffhis bodyatthefrontdoor.WhenMikeopensit,Tom’sbody,mummifiedin bandages—avisualrelicandastunningmetaphorforthefilm’shistorical transformationofthegangster—topplesforwardtothefloor.Mikestaresat thecorpse,hiseyesfillingwithrage,andthenherisesmechanicallyand marchesoffpastthecamera.Here,contemporaryreleaseprintsofthefilm endedwithafulsomeandincongruoustextcondemnationofthegangster andhisworld,butWellman’sfinalshootingscriptandoriginalshotfootage
ContemporaryHistoryintheAgeofScarface 73
followedMiketohisroom,whereheopenedacaseofgrenadesbrought homefromFrance.50WellmanthenplannedtofadeoutonMike’shands ashestuffsthegrenadesintohiswornarmytrousers,intentonavenging hisbrother’sdeath.Theveteranthusbecomesanothercriminal. Evidence suggests that the filmmakers attempted to sneak the controversialconclusionpastthecensors;itwasaddedlatetothefinalscript andthenshotandreshottowardtheendofFebruary.However,thePCA’s JasonJoycaughtZanuckanddemandedthatthescenebecutinorderto endonanunequivocalcondemnationofviolence.51Thisscenealsomay havehittooclosetothehistoricalnerveforthecensors,forherethefilmmakersexplicitlylinktheveteranwiththegangster.Otherstudioswould pondertheconnection,particularlyColumbia’sTheLastParade(1931), inwhichtheveteranprotagonistturnstocrimeafterthewar. Othercontemporaneoushistorianswroteaboutthedisplacementof veteransandtheirmanipulationbythegovernment.Burns’s1931history ofChicago’sgangwars,TheOne-WayRide,wasthemostcomprehensive. Like The Public Enemy’s use of text and date superimpositions, Burns sought to give the disturbing stories and images of Chicago gangland some reassuring historical continuity. Known for his popular history of TombstoneandTheSagaofBillytheKid,52BurnsframedChicagoand its gangsters as the natural inheritors of the Wild West.53 The gangster was America’s new lone hero, the Chicago rackets the new American mother lode, and Chicago the wildest and most lawless of the western cities.BurnsbeganhisstudybycomparingColosimotoapioneerstriking agoldmine:“Hispickwassunkuptothehiltinthelodeofbootlegtreasure.”54Eventhosewhodespisedgangstersasforeign,pleasureseeking, andeffeminatecouldnotresistthetraditionallawlessmetaphor.YetTorrioandCaponedisplacedtheold-fashionedColosimoasthepreeminent gunmenofthenewWest,andwiththisnewphaseinganglandhistory, BurnscouldnotavoidintroducinganalogiesbetweentheoldWestand thedeadlierWesternFrontofrecentmemory.JustasBurnssawtheoldstylegangsterColosimotiedtotheromanticized,violentheritageofthe oldWest,sohelikenedthenew,colder,moreefficientgenerationofheroestothebloodshedontheWesternFront.55Thesegangsterslacked“the naturalbravadooftheoutlawsofthewesternplains,”andtheirperceived relevance to American history was measured not by frontier images of independenceandexhilaratingconflictbutbydistortedmemoriesofthe GreatWar.Ratherthanfunctioningasagentsofnationalcontinuity,the moderngangsterwasaproductofawarthathadfracturedanunderstandingofaunifiedandprogressivepast.56
74 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
Burnsframedmuchofhisganglandhistorywithchaptersalludingto GreatWareventsandparlance,suchas“OpeningGunsoftheWar”and “The WesternFront.”PasleynamedCapone’spush to gain total dominanceintheChicagorackets“TheBootlegBattleoftheMarne.”This war began with the Capone gang’s run-ins with the O’Donnell faction andendedwiththeSt.Valentine’sDaymassacre;itwasmarkedbyfrequentandoftenmeaninglessscrapsaccompaniedbythepress’sscreamingheadlines,“ThisIsWar!”57Itisalmostasifthewarneverendedfor manyveterans,andtheVolsteadActandtheensuingpublicpassionfor liquor and lawbreaking only provided the battlefield for these modern heroes.Capone,Weiss,O’Bannion,Torrio,O’Donnell,andMortonwere thepostwarera’snewheroes;displacedbyonewar,theywerenowarbiters ofanewwartime“theater”withunstablehistoricalboundaries. Whereas Zanuck, Pasley, and Burns unequivocally set the gangster within the trajectory of America’s past, social historian John Landesco rejected the notion of the gangster’s continuity with American history. HiredbytheIllinoisAssociationforCriminalJustice,hepublishedameticulously researched social history of Chicago crime that claimed that thegangsterandthelaw-abidingcitizen“havebeenrearedintwodifferentworlds”andbelongtoseparatecultures.Althoughhissocialhistory attemptedtodepictthegangenvironmentfromthe“criminal”perspective,hecutoffthegangsterfromthenation’svaluesandhistory.58Landescoignoredtheconnectionsamongthegeneralpostwardecline,the government’sabuseofveteransandmarginalizedgroups,andtheriseof thegangster;ifhehadnot,thenmenlikeAlCaponeandNailsMorton would have been the natural outcome of America’s “law-abiding” culture.Landesco’sbookquicklypassedoutofprintwhentheIllinoisCrime Commissiondisbanded. In contrast, Zanuck, Pasley and Burns, who stressed the historical continuitiesbetweenthegangsterandmainstreamAmericanhistory,had aneagerpublic.TheyplacedAlCaponeandhiscolleagueswithinthe traditionalframeworkofheroicAmericanbiography.Pasley’sbookisfamously subtitled The Biography of a Self-made Man, likening Capone to Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, and Andrew Carnegie.59 He definedCaponeas“Chicago’smonumenttocivicthrust”andcompared theunderworldentrepreneurrepeatedlytoJohnD.Rockefeller.60Bythe late1920s,PasleyclaimedthatCaponewasnotonlythedefinitive“life” ofhiserabutalsoaherointhesamecategorywithHenryFord,Charles Lindbergh,MaryPickford,andDouglasFairbanks.HequotedoneChicago official on Capone: “If he had only been honest, what a hero he
ContemporaryHistoryintheAgeofScarface 75
wouldhavemadeforaHoratioAlgertale.”61ButthedaysofAlgerwere gone; for many Americans, the Great War relegated these narratives to quaintanachronisms.
TheLifeofAlCapone WhileZanuckwasintheprocessoforganizingThePublicEnemy,HowardHugheswasdevelopinghisownideaforamodernbiopic.Amultimillionaire and son of a Texas industrialist, Hughes began investing in motionpicturesinthemid-1920s.In1928heproducedhisfirstgangster picture.TheRacketbeganin1927asaBroadwayhitbyformerChicago crime reporter Bartlett Cormack and featured Edward G. Robinson in his only stage gangster role.62 The character of Nick Scarsi was loosely basedonAlCapone,butCormackrefrainedfromdepictingrealevents inChicagohistoryorCapone’slife,marginalizingScarsi’sroleinfavor of an incorruptible cop, McQuigg. The film script, directed by Lewis Milestone, also avoided condemnation by focusing on the tribulations ofthehonestcopandkillingthemagneticScarsiinthefinalscenes.It wassuccessful,butHugheswantedtoproducesomethingmoredaring— somethingwithmorebasisinhistory.Inhisfirstsoundfilm,Hell’sAngels (1930),heturnedtotheexploitsoffliersintheFirstWorldWarbutsoon becameinterestedinadifferentkindofbattlefield.Hewasnotcoyabout
AlCaponehandles thecommissioner. (Author’scollection)
76 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
it;heplannedhissubjecttobethelifeofAlCapone,therebyconfronting the two battlegrounds of modern American culture: Chicago gangland historyandHollywood’sProductionCodeAdministration.Hugheshired maverickfilmdirectorHowardHawksfortheinflammatoryproject.AlthoughHawkssharedHughes’srenegadefilmmakerstatusandcontempt forLouisB.Mayerandtherestofthestudiomoguls,hehadnevermade ahistoricalfilmsetinAmerica.Hughes’smostcrucialproductiondecisionwasthechoiceoftheprincipalscreenwriters:W.R.Burnett(author ofLittleCaesar),FredD.Pasley(Caponebiographer),andex–Chicago reporterBenHecht.WhereasLittleCaesar’snarrativestructuremanipulatedthetraitsofearlysound-erahistoricalcinema,andThePublicEnemy described many incidents recognizable within Chicago’s gangland history,Scarfacewouldtakeitsengagementwithmodernhistoryonestep further.Morethantheothertwocriticallyacclaimedgangsterpictures, Scarfacewasabiopic.Itwasalsooneofthemosthighlycensoredfilmsin Hollywood’shistory,mostlyduetoitsallegedglorificationofthelifeofAl Capone.LikeZanuck,Scarface’sproducerhired“historicalexperts”on Chicago’searlyProhibitioneratosuperviseproduction.Scarface’sprincipalscreenwriterwas,inasense,partofthiscategory. BenHecht,aformerreporterfortheChicagoDailyNews,hadleft the New York literary world a few years earlier, based on the advice of successfulHollywoodscreenwriterHermanJ.Mankiewicz,whotoldhim thathugemoneycouldbemadeworkingforthefilmindustry.Hecht’s firsteffort,Underworld(1927),anearlysilentgangsterfilm,drewloosely onhisknowledgeofThompsonandCaponeinChicago,butithadno historical elements or recognizable references to the alleged character templates.Theantiheroesweremerelyurbantypes.Butby1931,sound had transformed the gangster film. Film historian Jonathan Munby recentlyemphasizedtherevolutionaryaspectofhearingethnicspeech,but moresignificanttofilmproducersatthetimewasthetalkinggangster’s authenticity. Urban speed and accent made him more real than his silent predecessors, and in the early 1930s, when the artistic viability of thetalkieswasstillincontention,theaddedauthenticityofsoundfilm wasamajorargumentinitsfavor.Inevitablylinkedtotheindustry’snew pursuitofauthenticitywastheemergingcycle’sappropriationofhistory. The gangsters not only looked and talked like real gangsters; they were realgangsters.ButHecht’snextgangsterscript,Scarface,hadmorethan Underworld’sperfunctoryinterestinrealincidentsandpeople. Burnett,Pasley,andHechtbasedtheirmaterialonArmitageTrail’s pulp novel, Scarface.63 Although Howard Hawks later claimed that
ContemporaryHistoryintheAgeofScarface 77
Hughes’sCaddoCompanyhadpaidTrailonlyfortheuseofthesuggestivetitle,64Trail’snovel,likeBrightandGlasmon’sBeerandBlood,providedaluridandpowerfulhistoricalbackgroundfromwhichtoproject agangsterbiopic.TrailnamedhisheroTonyGuarinoandprovidedhim withacrookedcopforabrother,buttheurbanpulpnovelstillresembled a popular biography of Capone.65 He dramatized Capone’s hazy New Yorkcareer,hissmall-timebeginningsasanassassininChicago,andhis partnershipwithandeventualdisplacementofJohnnyTorrio.Mostcurious is Trail’s explanation of his protagonist’s nickname and the book’s title.Houndedbythepoliceandboredwithhisfractiousmoll,Tonygoes toamoviealone.AsTrailrelates:“AmericahadenteredtheWorldWar butafewdaysbeforeandthescreenflashedanappealforvolunteersto jointhearmyforimmediateoverseasservice.Tonywonderedwhatsort ofsapswouldfallforthat.Nothe.Whatdidheowethecountry?What hadthecountryeverdoneforhim?”66TonyGuarino,likeTominThe PublicEnemy,initiallyscoffsatpatrioticappeals.Yetafterkillingapair ofthugs,heenlists—inamachineguncompany.LikeNailsMorton,he acquireshisscar,winstheCroixdeGuerre,andreturnstoChicagoan anonymous doughboy. The war and the government have taught him “thefineartofmurder”andprovidedhimwiththetoolsandstrategyto fightanotherwar.67TrailnovelizedCapone’sownimaginativeautobiography,butitwouldtakethegrittyspeechofHecht’sChicago,PaulMuni’s ethnictoughness,andavigorouspressandcensorshipcampaigntoreify thecontroversiesoffilmingcontemporaryhistory. Thescreenwritersretainedthenovel’sreferencetoCaponeandreconstructedabiopicalongthelinesofPasley’sBiographyofaSelf-made Man.Upuntilthatpointinhiseclecticandprolificliterarycareer,Hecht hadneverattemptedtowriteapopularhistory,andBurnett,farmoreexperiencedwithgangandhistoricalscripts,wouldlaterclaimthatHecht onlypolishedtheirefforts.However,HechtknewbothBurnsandPasley fromhisChicagonewspaperdaysandsoughttheirhistoricalknowledge in framing his script.68 Burnett, Pasley, and Hecht’s script, later rewrittenanddoctoredbywritersJohnLeeMahinandSetonI.Miller,loosely followedPasley’spopularbiography.Infact,itintroducesScarface(Paul Muni)inaTwenty-secondStreetbarbershopshortlyafterColosimo’sassassination.Asthebarbercrossesoutthedeadgangster’snamefromhis shavingmug,acopasks,“Where’sScarface?”Thescriptthendescribes the young protagonist as he sits in the barber’s chair. He removes the towelcoveringhisface.Hisscarsgleaminthelight.ItisCapone. UnlikeLittleCaesarandThePublicEnemy,Scarfacedoesnotbegin
78 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
withanepigraphorforeword(neitheronpapernoronthescreen).Dated newspaperinsertsareusedsparingly,andtherearenosuperimposeddates orhistoricalintertitlestotextuallyguidetheaudiencethroughScarface’s public and private life. And yet, like its predecessors, the film does beginwithatextshotlinkingittoitshistoricalreferent.Thefirstscripted shotfadesinonaChicagostreetsign,Twenty-secondStreetandWabash Avenue,perhapsthemostnotoriousintersectioninAmericaduringthe Prohibitionera.ThiscornerwasattheheartofCapone’sSouthSideand thesiteofmanyof his most sensational alleged crimes. The narrative outlinedinthescriptthenfollowsthepatternestablishedbythemajor histories of the Chicago gangs: The affable and aging Colisimo (Colosimo)isgunneddowninhisowncabaretbyashadowy,“unknown” gunman. The cold businessman Johnny Lovo (Torrio) takes over his rackets with the assistance of his loud-mouthed, fancy-dressing, scarfacedlieutenant,TonyCamonte(Capone).ButCamonte,unlikeLovo, isagluttonforpresscoverageandlovesseeinghisnameinprint.When Camontelatercommandeerspower,heboaststhathismachinegunisa newinstrumentforwritinghistory:“I’mgoin’towritemynameallover thistown.”Hismachinegun,likeHawks’scamera,willrewriteChicago’s history. AlthoughThePublicEnemymaintainedacastofrecognizableChicagohoodlums,Zanuckwasforcedtochangetheirnamesinallbutone case (“Nails” Nathan). Scarface’s extant scripts reveal that the team of screenwritersusedthehistoricalnamesandsites,onlyoccasionallyalteringthespelling:ColosimobecameColisimo,O’BannionbecameBannon,MoranbecameDoran,andCaponebecameCamonte.69Although thisevidencesuggeststhatthescreenwriterswereundertheimpression that they were writing a traditional biopic or souped-up history of the 1920sChicagogangwars,bythetimeproductionbegan,Hawkshadbecomemorecautiousabouttheexcessivehistoricaldetails.Hiscopyofthe scriptcontainsmultiplepenciledannotationscallingforthechangingof namesandChicagolocales.Earlyonpagethree,hetoldMillerandthe other dialogue writers to “change everything identifying locale as Chicagoandeverythingidentifyingcharacters.”70Evidently,thefilmendured a gradual screening process to dilute its historical character. Historical scholarship would doubtless attribute this effacement to Hollywood’s overmasteringmythicdiscourseandlackofhistoricalaccuracy,butthis view only explains why a film would ignore historical aspects from the beginning.Scarfacebeganasarigorouslyhistoricalfilmbutwassubsequentlyaltered.
WhokilledBigJim in1920? (Scarface)
Courting“press-tige.” (Scarface)
Writinghistorywitha newinstrument—the machinegun. (Scarface)
80 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
ThereasonsliewiththePCAandthefearofscreeninganunapologeticCaponebiopicwithouteventheobviousrusesofThePublicEnemy. InMarch1931,JasonJoyofthePCAnotedthatHughesandHawkswere intheprocessofmakingafilm“tobebasedonthelifeofAlCaponeand tobecalled‘Scarface.’”71Alreadythecensorsworriedaboutwhatafew facts could do to the reputation of the film business and, most embarrassingly,tothegovernment.InalettertoHughesdated1May1931,Joy fretted:“Themotionpictureindustryhasforalongtime...maintainedits righttoproducepurelyfictionalunderworldstories...buthas,ontheother hand, admitted the grave danger of portraying on the screen actual contemporaryhappeningsrelatingtodeficienciesinourgovernment,political dishonestyandgraft,currentcrimesoranti-socialorcriminalactivities.”72 When gangster films were contained by fiction, the censors knew they wereharmless,buthistoricalgangsterpicturesweredangerous.AccordingtoJoy,Caponewastheworstpossiblesubjectforabiopic,sincehe was the most dangerous of these evil forces. Censors kept an unrelentingwatchonthefilm’sprogressformonths,complainedthatitglorified Capone’slife,anddemandedthatthescriptshowCamontetobea“yellowrat”inthefinalpolicebattleandthathebetriedandhanged.Hays andhisassociateswereparticularlymaddenedbythetitleanditsobvious referencetoCapone.TheypressuredHughestochangethetitletoeither “Yellow”or“ShameoftheNation.”Hughesfoughtforhistitleanditshistoricalspecificity,undoubtedlyangeredbythecensors’suggestiontodrop the Capone angle and instead add a foreword that described the film’s subjectmoregenerallyas“thegangster.”73Hewasevenmoreincensed whenHaysdemandedanadditionalforewordnarratedbythepolicecommissionerofNewYorkcondemningallcrime.Butinlate1931,therewas littleHughescoulddo.FacedwiththeprospectofHays’srefusaltogrant Scarface a license, he reshot the ending and promised to make all the changesspecifiedbythePCA. Yet the PCA’s attempts to write Capone out of the film’s historical record failed on two counts. When the New York and Chicago censor boardsstillrejectedtherevisedShameoftheNation,Hughesfeltbetrayed byHaysandJoy;hewasalsoconvincedthatMGM’sLouisB.Mayer,a closefriendofHays,wasattemptingtopreventsuccessfulinnovationsby independentcompetitorswiththeuseofextremecensorship.74Hughes, a rich renegade, was a minority but a potential threat to Mayer’s more mundane production line. In an unprecedented decision, Hughes and his press director Lincoln Quarberg engineered a press showing of the original Scarface in Hollywood and New York. The critics’ extravagant
ContemporaryHistoryintheAgeofScarface 81
praise and uniform condemnation of Hays and Joy encouraged him to chancetherepercussionsofstatecensorshipandreleasethefilmindifferentnationalmarketswithoutallthealterationsstipulatedbythePCA. Hebegantorecallanddestroyallthetainted,censoredprintsandstocked theaterswiththerealversion.75Hays,reelingfromthepress’scriticism, triedtoclaimthattheoriginalScarfacewasthecensoredversionhehad approvedinlate1931.Fewlistened. ScarfaceremainedScarface,andsoonaudiencesrecognizedthehigh points of Capone’s historic career: the O’Donnell and O’Bannion beer wars,theassassinationofO’BannionandWeiss,thefallofTorrio,theSt. Valentine’sDaymassacre.Buttheunprecedentedcampaignbythecensorstoremovethehistoricalaspectsofthenarrativealsofailedbecauseof thenationalpublicityandscornitattractedinthepress.Thepublicread aboutthemanyattemptstorepresstheCaponescreenbiography,andat the theaters, audiences associated Lovo with Torrio and Camonte with Caponewithease.ThemajornationalreviewersreferredtoScarfaceas the“Caponefilm,”oftenquotingthehistoricalallusionsthecensorshad taken such pains to suppress.76 But screenwriter, playwright, and critic RobertE.Sherwood’s“MovingPictureAlbum”reviewintheHollywood Citizen-News expressed the wrath of many filmmakers toward the censors. Hughes’s people had approached Sherwood in the early stages of Hays’scampaigntodestroythefilm,andafterseeingtheoriginalversion inNewYork,SherwoodbecameScarface’schampion:“Thepossiblemeritsof‘Scarface’asentertainment,oritsimportanceasasociologicalor historicaldocument,areofnoparticularconsequenceintheargument thatshouldbemadeforitsfreerelease.Allthatmattersisthatanutterly
HappyValentine’sDay fromTonyCamonte. (Scarface)
82 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
inexcusableattempthasbeenmadetosuppressit—notbecauseitisobscene,notbecauseitiscorruptive,orlibelous,orblasphemous,orsubversive—butbecause,like‘PublicEnemy,’itcomestooclosetotelling thetruth.”77AsoneofAmerica’smostastuteandrespectedfilmcritics, SherwoodrecognizedthatScarface’sgreatestdangerwasthatitcame tooclosetobeingahistoricalfilm.Theperilsoffilmmakersdealing withmodernhistory,ofbecomingmodernhistorianswiththemodern historiographicaltooloffilm,weretoomuchformanypeopleoutside the industry. Although the life of Abraham Lincoln78 or Alexander Hamilton might safely bore people in the theaters, placing Capone andhiscohortsinthesamecategoryandusingthesametoolsforhistoricalfilmmakingwassimply,asSherwoodputit,“tooclosetotelling thetruth”aboutwhathadhappenedtohistoryandheroesinmodern America.Scarfacemayhaveearnedonlyamodestrunintheaters,but itsneardestructionandcontroversialsubjecteasilymadeitthemost discussedfilmof1932. AlthoughfilmscholarshipwouldlatercitetheseclassicalHollywood gangsterfilms’inherent“modernity”asthesourceoftheirsubversivenarrativesandthePCA’scensorshipcampaigns,reviewingthemashistorical filmsratherthanHollywoodfantasiesormodernmythsrevealsfarmore dangerous elements. As their production histories and reception attest, thesefilms,inparticularThePublicEnemyandScarface,wereconstructed as histories of postwar America, reinterpretations of the nationalist tendenciesoftraditionalhistoriographyandthecanonofAmerican“heroes.”Thestructuresofhistoricalcinemacouldnarratethelivesofboth AbrahamLincolnandAlCapone.Asveteransbecameindistinguishable fromgangsters,sojournalismbecameonlythefirststageofhistoriography,andfilmmakersbecamehistorians.TheGreatWar,Prohibition,and the criminal empires of Al Capone, Dion O’Bannion, Terry Druggan, FrankyLake,andJohnnyTorrioweretheirhistoricalmaterial;Doorway toHell,LittleCaesar,ThePublicEnemy,andScarfaceturnedthetextof America’spostwarhistoryintoascript.
TheEndofanEra MGM’sManhattanMelodrama(1934)wasarguablythelastofthe“historical” gangster films of the early 1930s. It references historical events such as the Arnold Rothstein killing, and it contains newspaper inserts and superimposed dates. Since it was a period gangster film, the PCA reactedwithitscharacteristicaversiontorepresentingcontemporaryhis-
ContemporaryHistoryintheAgeofScarface 83
tory.79Foronce,JasonJoyhadnothingtoworryabout.LikeMGM’sother gangsterpicture,TheSecretSix(1931),thefilmmakerswereouttoput thecriminalbehindbars.Infact,TheSecretSix,abowdlerizedstoryof EliotNess’shuntforCapone(thecrimelordScorpio),wasthefirstcrime film passed by Chicago’s censorship board without cuts.80 In preparing ManhattanMelodrama,MGMattemptedtomakeitshistoricalcontent andallusionsasbanalanduncontroversialaspossible.SetinNewYork, OliverH.P.Garrett’snarrativeavoideddramatizingthelivesofthemore infamousChicagogangstersandthereforedidnotarousethewidespread historicalrecognitionofthepressandpublic.Onlyitsexhibitors’advertisingmanuallinkedthefilmtootherhistoricalgangstersuccessessuchas ScarfaceandLittleCaesar,which“werebasedonthelifeandcareerofAl Capone.”81Initially,GarrettlinkedhisheroesBlackieandJimWadeto ZanuckandHughes’shistoricalgangstersbygivingtheirwarexperiences textualprominence.Laterversionsofthescript,doctoredbyJoeMankiewicz,eliminatedtheconnectionbetweenthegangsterandtheveteran.82 Althoughthefilmwaspunctuatedbydatedtextinserts, MGM’s use of historicalstructureswasmerelyanattemptatprestigegloss. Howevermeageritsinternalcommitmenttorepresentinghistorical events,followingoneChicagoscreening,ManhattanMelodramaunwittingly became an event in the final chapters of gangster history. With Capone’s conviction for income tax evasion in 1931, John Dillinger, a smaller-scalebutcharismaticbankrobber,becamethepublic’sfavorite lawbreakerforashorttime.Dillingerwasalsoanavidmoviefan,andin 1934hewasmurderedbyfederalagentsshortlyafterseeingManhattan MelodramaatChicago’sBiographTheatre.Ironically,Dillinger’sdeath providedthescreencensorswithammunitiontoendthecycle.Although studioswereeagertofilmPublicEnemyNumberOne’sbiography,the censorsanticipatedtheresurgenceofgangsterfilms,andin1935,Hays imposedamoratoriumontheirproduction.83 Althoughgangsterfilmscontinuedtoappearuntil1935,eventhose basedonhistoricalevents,suchasTwentiethCentury–Fox’sNowI’llTell (1934)andWarnerBrothers’Dr.Socrates(1935),weremostlylow-budget endeavors,indifferentlymarketedbythestudiosandindifferentlyreceived bythecritics.NowI’llTellwasscriptedfromthememoirsofMrs.Arnold Rothsteinandattractedsomeindustrialattentionasan“authentic”documentofRothstein’scareerandhisinfamousloveofracingandbaseball.84 LikeThePublicEnemy,Mrs.Rothstein’sscriptbeganwithatextforeword anda1909setting.ButZanuck’sinterestinrecordingtherealeventsof gang history had waned. The film’s sloppy marketing and rapid disap-
84 TraditionalandModernAmericanHistory
pearancefromthetheatersindicatedthattheproducerhadfoundmore lucrativehistoricalventures. AfewmonthsafterproducingThePublicEnemy,Zanuckreleasedhis safer,moretraditionalAmericanbiographyAlexanderHamilton,which causednorun-inswiththeProductionCode.Zanuck’sbloody,disjunctive,elliptical,andtroublingmodernhistoriesgavehimunprecedented controloverthedirectionofanevolvingcyclebalancedprecariouslybetweenobjectivityanddistortion,journalismandhistory,heroes,veterans, and villains. But by 1935, the costs of confronting the nation’s violent postwarheritage,itsambivalentheroes,andtheuncertainevidencewere too high. As head of Twentieth Century and later Twentieth Century– Fox,ZanucktookfewerobviousriskswithmodernAmericanhistoryand honedhishistoricalacumenwithbiographiesofSamuelMudd(1936), JesseJames(1939),AlexanderGrahamBell,AbrahamLincoln,Stephen Foster,LillianRussell(1940),andBelleStarr(1941).Althoughhecontinuedtoexploremarginalizedhistoricalevents,governmentinjustice,and ambivalentnationalheroes,hewouldavoidhistoricizingcriminalfigures ofhisowngeneration. AtWarnerBrothers,Dr.Socrates,basedonacountrysurgeon’ssecret operationonJohnDillingerandwrittenbyW.R.Burnett(LittleCaesar), sharedasimilarfate.OriginalscriptedreferenceslinkingJesseJamesto themoderngangsterwereminimized.85Therewerenomorehistorical referencestoChicagoortextualtrappings,andthepressreleasestended to disguise their historical approximations rather than to capitalize on them.86ItwasPaulMuni’slastgangsterfilm,butsignificantly,hedidnot playtheDillingerstand-in,“RedBastion.”He,likeZanuck,soonturned tosaferbiographicalroles(TheLifeofEmileZola,1937).Undoubtedly, censorshipandthe1935moratoriumcrippledthecycle.Infact,Haysand thecensorsdidtheirbesttowritethehistoricalgangsteroutoffilmhistory.JackWarnerandHugheswererepeatedlydeniedtherighttorerelease LittleCaesar,ThePublicEnemy,andScarfaceintheatersafter1935.87 Instead,HayspermittedNewYorkcopJohnnyBrodericktogetstar treatmentfromEdwardG.RobinsonintheWarnerBrothersactionbiopicBulletsorBallets(1936).Itwasmoderatelysuccessful,andNewYork Times film critic Frank S. Nugent dutifully noted the main character’s similaritiestoBroderick,88butthefilmdidnotreceivetheattentionand critical acclaim of Robert E. Sherwood’s filmed Broadway hit The Petrified Forest (1936), which allegorized the life and career of Dillinger. By1936,WarnerBrothershadtolooktoBroadwayforthechallenging modernbiographiesithadoncepioneered.AlthoughHumphreyBogart’s
ContemporaryHistoryintheAgeofScarface 85
performanceasDukeManteeelectrifiedHollywood,thefilmnarrative existedinatimelessworldunmarkedbythetextualreferencesoftheformerhistoricalgangsterfilms.Thesetting,afterall,isadesolateroadhouse in the petrified forests of the Arizona desert, far from the documented world of Chicago and the well-publicized details of Dillinger’s career. Afewyearslater,whenZanuckfilmedJohnSteinbeck’s“history”ofthe early1930sOklahomadustbowl,TheGrapesofWrath(1940),Nunnally Johnson, perhaps the most famous historical screenwriter at Twentieth Century–Fox,removedSteinbeck’sanalogybetweenTomJoadandthe well-knownDustBowlbanditandassociateofJohnDillinger,PrettyBoy Floyd.Theproducerandhistopscreenwriterhadlearnedalessonregardingfilmandcontemporaryhistoryandresistedthetemptationtomake TheGrapesofWrathahistoricalfilmdocumentingtheearly1930sexodustoCalifornia.89Instead,Zanuckmovedbacktothemoretraditional fieldsofentertainmentbiographiesandCivilWarhistory. WarnerBrothers,though,hadnotquitefinishedfilmingtheRoaring Twenties. In 1937, the studio tentatively remembered its gangster past intheopeningsequenceofthecontemporarymelodramaThatCertain Woman,withashotoftheheadstoneofaformerChicagocrimelord.“Al Haines”hadbeenkilledin1929inCapone’sSt.Valentine’sDaymassacre,buthismemorystillhauntedBetteDavis’syoungwidowMary.She, andWarnerBrothers,couldnotescapetheirpast.
This page intentionally left blank
Part Two
Resolving Westward Expansion
This page intentionally left blank
3
CompetingFrontiers, 1933–1938 Themovingpicturehasenteredintoanewphaseofdevelopment.Ithas outgrownthesmallclothesoftheaterandfiction.Producersarebeginning torealizeatlonglastthattheymustnotgoto“proved”sourcessomuchas tooriginalsourcesofmaterial. —FrancesTaylorPatterson,NorthAmericanReview,1937
Whilecensorshipdismantledtheproductionofhistoricalgangsterfilms, from1932to1935,thestudioswereequallyunabletoproduceanother Cimarron. For Hollywood, 1931 and 1932 were the worst years of the Depression,andthestudiosproducedfewexpensiveAmericanhistorical films. Prestige westerns such as The Big Trail, The Great Meadow, and CimarrongavewaytomoremodestgunfighteradaptationssuchasDestry RidesAgain(1932),LawandOrder(1932),andFrontierMarshal(1934). Decadeslater,filmandculturalstudiesofthewesternclaimedthatthe genre disappeared with the conversion to sound.1 Due to the financial “disasters”ofTheBigTrailandCimarron,studiossupposedlyhandedthe worngenretoPovertyRowandGeneAutry.Accordingtohistoricaltradition,itwasonlyin1939withthereleaseofJohnFord’sStagecoachthat thewesternreturned. Thispowerfulmythhasthrivedovertheyearsonaverynarrowbut highlystructureddefinitionofthewesterngenrepushedbyRobertWarshow,JohnCawelti,WillWright,andJohnTuskainthe1970s.Theclassicwestern,thoughroughlyreflectingwidespreadculturalbeliefsabout 89
90 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
America’sfrontierpast,wassupposedlyincapableofacriticalinterpretationofwesternhistory.EvenmorethantheHollywoodgangstergenre, the western was said to dramatize the definitive national myth. Rigidly constructed, it employed set binary oppositions (cowboy versus Indian, white versus red, civilization versus savagery), predictable conflicts and resolutions,andsimpleformulasunsulliedbythecourseoftime.Film historianPeterStanfieldrecentlycorrectedthefallacyofthe“empty”decadeofthe1930s,2butlikehispredecessors,hedefinedtheessenceofthe westernasthefrontiercowboy-and-Indianparadigm.Thoughrecovering partofthe“losttrail”of1930swesterns,Stanfield’sconservativedefinition excludesmuchofthestudios’historicaldevelopmentandremixingofthe genre. Itistruethatthepowerfulwesternmyth,hallowedinthesilentera, disappeared from major film production during the Great Depression, but the western did not. Filmmakers such as Darryl Zanuck, Edward Small,andCecilB.DeMilledidnotdevelopafilmgenreorcyclewithin the circumscribed structuralist rules of late twentieth-century film history.Instead,theyspentmuchofthe1930sreinventingthewestern,trying differentapproachesandhistoricaltopicsandmixingcyclesandgenres. Cimarron’seclectic,conflicted,multiracial,feministWestprovidedarich andunfamiliarhistoricalapproachtotheAmericancinema’smostenduringgenre.ForfilmmakerswhorememberedTheCoveredWagonorThe IronHorse,Cimarronmeantbotharedemptionoftheprestigioussilent westernsandatransformationoftheirmythicdiscourseofheroicprogressintoamoreself-consciouspresentationofAmericanhistory.Between Cimarron’sreleaseandtheexplosionofthe“superwestern”in1939,Hollywoodtestedthebordersofmajorwesternfilmmakingasneverbefore. Between1933and1938,thehistoricalwesternwasarichandcontested frontierwhereissuesofracialinstability,themythsofgenderandheroism,andnationalnarrativesofprogressfoughtwithinconflictingstrategiesoffilmproduction.Therewerewesternmusicals,MaeWestvehicles, frontier epics, critiques of frontier epics, narratives about mixed-blood Americans,andbiographiesoffrontierwomen. Manyofthefilmsdiscussedinthischapterdescendedfromauthors whoscornedtraditionalviewsofhistoryandchosetowritetheirrevisionist accountsoftheAmericanfrontierashistoricalnovels.LikeEdnaFerber, James Fenimore Cooper (The Last of the Mohicans, 1826) and Helen Hunt Jackson (Ramona, 1884) sought more accurate views of the past, oftencourtingcontroversyandthedisdainofprofessionalhistorians.But their more accessible historical novels also captured the wider popular
CompetingFrontiers 91
audiencedeniedtotheircolleagues’molderingtexts.Theirconvictionto articulateanewhistoriography,bothinformandincontent,andtoreach alargeraudiencesignificantlyinfluencedscreenwriting’simpactonthe productionofAmericanhistoricalcinema.ItalsodrovefilmmakersJohn Balderston,LamarTrotti,DarrylZanuck,FrankLloyd,andHowardEstabrookinmanyirreconcilableways.
WhoWas“Andy”Oakley? DespitethefailureofTheConquerorsin1932,RKOcontinuedtoadapt and produce films set in the national past. But the period melodramas Little Women (1933) and The Age of Innocence (1934) were relatively low-maintenance narratives, requiring no grandiose on-location shots orepicbattlescenesorthelengthypreliminaryresearchneededforan originalhistoricalscreenplay.Althoughlackingforewordsandsuperimposeddates,thenarrativesreliedonaperiodsettingandthepassageof years,inwhichwomeneitherdeterminedthecourseofthenarrativeor destabilizeditssettledtraditions.JoMarchandEllenOlenskadominated theirnineteenth-centuryworlds,butunlikeSabraCravat,theylackedthe prepossessinghistoricalstructuresandsupportofCimarron’saccountof American history from 1889 to 1930. Warner Brothers and Twentieth Century–Foxhadtakentheleadinwritingimpressiveifdullbiographies ofmen,whereasAmericanwomenseemedtooperatewithintheconfines ofpopularfiction.3AsGeorgeCustennotedinhisstudyofclassicalHollywoodbiographicalfilms,filmedAmericanhistoryseemedtheconventionalprovinceof“greatmen.”4 Once again, RKO redeemed women in American history with its 1935 production of Annie Oakley. According to the RKO story department, the Oakley biopic was based on a “semi-historical biographical romance”byJosephA.FieldsandEwartAdamson.5Itislikelythatthe Fields-Adamsonstoryandmuchofthenarrativedetailwereculledfrom therecentlypublishedpopularbiographyofOakleybyCourtneyRyley Cooper.6 Hard times had befallen RKO since Cimarron’s release. The studiocouldnolongeraffordtoinvestinaprestigioushistoricaltaleby Edna Ferber, but it found the virtually copyright-free field of history a cheapermeansofappropriatingmaterial.Butthestudiohadalsocutits mostexperiencedscreenhistorian.HowardEstabrook’sonceenormous research resources and salary had been pared down to fit hack writers Joel Sayre and John Twist, and the whole production of Annie Oakley costlessthan$320,000.7Despitethescript’spreoccupationwithAnnie’s
92 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
shootingrivalryandromancewith“TobyTaylor,”AnnieOakleyretained vestiges of RKO’s historical prestige. Although there were no intertitles or date superimpositions, Annie’s illustrious career was documented in a series of newspaper headlines and articles. Eventually, as production wrapped,thefilmmakersaddedasuitablyimpressivetextforeword:“No fictionisstrangerthantheactuallifeofAnnieOakleywhocameoutofa backwoodsvillagehalfacenturyagotoastonishtheworld.”8 Yet, the filmmakers were hesitant to present a screen biography of awomanpopularlyrecognizedasthegreatestshotintheworld.When the hastily arranged shooting match with the renowned Toby Taylor is announced, the spectators assume that the mysterious challenger “A. Oakley” must be Andy Oakley. No one has ever heard of him. When Taylordiscoverstheidentityofhisopponent,herefusestocompetewith her.Annieasks,“JustbecauseI’mnotaman,youwon’tletmetry?”He finallyagrees.Withthefirstshot,itisobviousthatsheisthebettermarksman.Thissceneisthefirstofmanyscriptedquestioningsoftheveracity oftheprintedword.Here,asinCimarronandLittleCaesar,onehasto trustwhatisseen,notread,justasfilmedhistory,byimplication,ismore interesting and accurate than traditional texts. Yet RKO’s screenwriters wereuncomfortablewiththehistoricaltruth.AlthoughAnniewinsher matchinthefirstdraft,insubsequentscripts,shethwartsherownskill, firstclaimingthatTaylorletherwin,andthendeliberatelymissingher last shot to assuage his ego. The original estimating script planned for Annie to win the match, but not from her own efforts. Instead, Taylor wassupposedtodothechivalrousthingandgenerouslyallowhertowin thelastshot.AnaccompanyingnewspaperinsertwouldreinforceTaylor’s actionsbydescribinghisgentlemanlydeferencetoalady,butacountry musician would scoff at the story, saying, “Nobody believes newspaper talk,”thusaddingtotheuntrustworthynatureoftextualhistorieswithin historicalfilm.9Theseearlyscriptsconfrontednotonlytheconstruction of history by the press but also the distortions of dime novelists. When BuffaloBilldecidestomakeOakleyashootinglegendinhisWildWest Show,hepromisesthatsoonher“life”willbedocumentedinthedime novels.Butlaterthefilmmakersdispelanyassumptionoftext“prestige” whenaclose-upshowsBillchortlingovera“BuffaloBill”novel’sinaccuraciesandexcesses.10Film’sessentialcapacitytorepresentthe“real” Buffalo Bill scoffing over his “biography” (rather than resorting to the ludicroustextualconstructionsofthedimenovels)acknowledgesvisual history’ssuperiorityoverprintedaccounts. Originallyentitled“ShootingStar,”lateinproductionthefilmmak-
CompetingFrontiers 93
ersdecidedtolendAnnieOakley’sscreenlifesomeadditionalhistorical cloutbyidentifyingitspecificallyasabiography.Theyaddedatextforeword, and the publicity department focused on the film’s historical aspects.PublicistsevenclaimedthatAnnieOakleywas“agoldminetothe greatshowmenwhosponsoredhermiraculouscareerahalfcenturyago andshewillproveanotherboxofficebonanzatotheshowmenof1935 asshelivesagaininthepicturethatbearshername.”11Oakley’slifecertainlyhadadvantagesasafilmbiopic,inthatshewasfirstconstructedas ashowbusinessstar;thisparalleledtheriseofactressBarbaraStanwyck, who played Annie, from Brooklyn foster child to Broadway showgirl to Hollywoodstar.Toacertainextent,AnnieOakleyfunctionedasadouble biography of Oakley and Stanwyck, with one life reinforcing the other for 1930s audiences.12 Annie Oakley was both a show-woman and part of the showmanship of public history (Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show). Althoughthehistoryofherlifewasfascinating,evenmoremagicalwas herlifeinBuffaloBill’spublicforumofrevivedwesternhistory.“Hiswild westshows,stillaliveintherecollectionsofmany,establishedatowering monumenttoabrilliantperiodinAmericanshowmanshipanddidmore toimmortalizeafierceperiodofhistorythandidtheharrowingevents themselves,”claimedRKO’spublicitydepartment.13Itwasasubtlewayof insinuatingthesuperiorityofperformedhistoriesovertheactualorwrittenevent.Butofcourse,film“historiography”trumpsallitspredecessors. EvenBuffaloBill’sWildWestShow,afamousearlyvisualhistorylater creditedwithcodifyingmanymythsoftheWest,14isdemystifiedbyafilm biographythatshowsOakley’slifebeforeandbehindthetents. Many films in the early sound era would explicitly link a powerful and disruptive woman with the development of the West. She was oftenaglamorousshow-woman,hersongsandperformancesdestabilizing thepredeterminedandcomparativelydullhistoricalrecord.Belleofthe Nineties(1934),KlondikeAnnie(1936), NaughtyMarietta(1935),San Francisco(1936),andGirloftheGoldenWest(1938)areundoubtedlythe mostprominentofthesefilms,andalthoughMaeWest’shipswingingand JeanetteMacDonald’ssingingoftenupstagedthescriptedperiodfrontier locale, the character often engaged in a dynamic relationship with the WildWest.WestandMacDonaldweretwoofParamount’sandMGM’s biggeststars,andtheirgreatestsuccesseswereinperiodfilms.MaeWest’s firststarringvehicleatParamountwasinanadaptationofherownGay NinetiesplaySheDoneHimWrong(1933).Later,West’sdisruptivepresencerevitalizedthemythofwesternhistoryandthefrontierexperiencein KlondikeAnnie.15Althoughshecontinuedtoappearinperiodstoriesun-
94 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
MaeWestinShe DoneHimWrong (1933):resisting tiestohistory.
til1940,Westrefusedtoplayanidentifiablehistoricalcharacter.Shetold historian and sometime-screenwriter Stuart Lake, who offered to write heraroleasLillianRussellorLillieLangtry,thatrealhistoricalroleswere notrightforherscreenpersona.16Westpreferredtoavoidthedemands andexpectationsofhistoricalcinema. Jeanette MacDonald’s career followed a similar route. In the early 1930sshechangedstudios,leavingParamount’scontemporarylovestoriesforMGM’speriodglamour.Althoughsheneverplayedarecognizablehistoricalfigure,MacDonald’scharactersalwaysfledtotheAmerican frontierandchangedit.InNaughtyMarietta,sheandNelsonEddyshun France,colonialNewOrleans,andtheruleoflawanddisappearintothe wilderness.InAnitaLoos’sSanFrancisco,countrygirlMaryBlakearrives inthemusichallsoftheBarbaryCoastandeventuallybecomes“Queen oftheCoast.”Shesingsthecity’santhemattheannualChickens’Ball, andthe1906earthquakebringsdownthehouse,purgingSanFrancisco ofitsunrulypast.Yetinspiteofthesenseofhistoricalperiodstructured throughoutthetext,17majorHollywoodstudiossuchasParamountand MGM continued to sublimate history to the wills of their most prominentstars.AndalthoughRKO’sAnnieOakleychallengedtraditionalfilm biographies of great men, the other major studios had yet to present a fullydevelopedhistoricalwesternalongthelinesofCimarron,onethat engagedthecomplexproblemsofnationalorigins,thedisplacementof NativeAmericans,andthearticulationofaseriesofevents. Butin1936,severalstudios,perhapsgatheringmomentumfromthe growthinadaptationsofliteraryclassicsandhistoricalfilms,tackledthe
CompetingFrontiers 95
problemsofnationalhistory,thefrontier,andracialidentity.Studioexecutivesdevelopedtwomethodsofproducinghistoricalwesterns.Some returned to classic historical novels that had achieved prior success in silent pictures, and others turned to popular histories, a new approach thatwasstillinkeepingwithHollywood’snewself-imposedroleascreator of serious historical cinema. The relative success of, and the historical researchandattitudesarticulatedby, TheLastoftheMohicans(1936), Ramona(1936),andWellsFargo(1937)notonlyoffersurprisinginsights intoCimarron’slegacybutalsorevealtheconflictingpathsthatwestern filmhistoriographywouldtakeafter1937.
JamesFenimoreCooper’sAmericanHistory InMarch1935,screenwriterJohnBalderstonwasconvincedthatJames FenimoreCooper’snovelTheLastoftheMohicans(1826)wouldmake agreat“historical‘epic’picture.”HewrotetoindependentproducerEdwardSmall,“WhatImeanby‘epic’isapicturethatdealswithavaster andmoreimportantthemeofgeneralandpermanenthistoricalsignificancethanisinvolvedinthefortunesofthehumanbeingwhosestories areinvolved.”Balderston’sdistinctionbetweenhistory,whichelucidates complexandwidespreadhistoricalevents,andbiography,whichfocuses ononecinematiclife(suchasGeorgeArliss’ssetofbiopics),createdan intellectualandfinancialhierarchyinAmericanhistoricalcinema.The screenwriteracknowledgedtherarityoftrueepicfilms,quotingthepure linestartedbyTheBirthofaNation,continuedbyTheCoveredWagon, andculminatinginCimarron.HepredictedthatCooper’sLastoftheMohicanscouldbethenextinline.Itsnarrative,hebelieved,couldprovide thebasisforanepicpreciselybecauseofitshistoricalcontent,the1757 massacreatFortWilliamHenry.18 ItwascuriouslyappropriatethatCooper’sLastoftheMohicanswas expected to inherit Cimarron’s mantle as the next great American historicalfilm.BothEdnaFerberandCooperwerehistoricalnovelistswitha jaundicedviewoftraditionalAmericanhistoriography.Botheschewedthe pedantry of historians but conducted rigorous research on their subjects. Bothexploredtheroleofthemixed-bloodedAmericanintheirworkand, through these biracial protagonists, succeeded in producing an alternative viewofaformativeperiodinAmericanhistory.Morerecently,late-twentieth- centuryacademicsdescribedtheirworkaspartofafoundationalAmerican mythic discourse. As a film, Cimarron has been imprisoned in the late-twentieth-centurycriticalframeworkofthewesterngenre,onethat
96 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
denied the film’s representation of historical arguments and complex eventsandinsistedthatitwaspartofapatternofmythicwesternarchetypes.Cooper’snovelalsosufferedfromthiscriticism.Culturalhistorians suchasRichardSlotkinconsideredLastoftheMohicanstobethedefinitivenationalmyth.19 InSlotkin’strilogyonthefrontiermythinAmericanculture,TheLast oftheMohicansservesasabridgelinkingearlyAmericancaptivitynarrativestothenineteenth-centuryimaginationofauniqueAmericancharacterandlatertothetwentieth-centurygenreofwesternfilms.Accordingto Slotkin,elementsofAmericanculture(suchasCooper’snovel)aremyths reflecting the country’s deep ideological investment in a romanticized viewofitspast.Thesemythsdramatizehistory,simplifyit,andreduceit to“aconstellationofcompellingmetaphors.”20Althoughhistoricalevents maygenerateanovellikeMohicans,thenovelisnothistorical.Slotkin’s argumentforthenovel’smythicstatus,likehislaterworkontheHollywoodcinema,dependsonCooper’s(andhistext’s)lackofaself-conscious andcriticalattitudetowardAmericanhistory.21 However,Cooper’sfirstprefacetothenoveldeliberatelyconstructs hisroleasahistorian.Hedefineshisbookasa“narrative”anddismissesa potentialaudienceanticipatingfantasy:“Thereader,whotakesupthese volumes, in expectation of finding an imaginary and romantic picture of things which never had an existence, will probably lay them aside, disappointed.”22 He continues with an abbreviated ethnography of the nativepeoplesindigenoustotheNewYorkfrontierofhisnarrativeand even punctuates his wholly fictitious account of the Munro daughters’ adventuresinNewYorkwithfootnotesontheaccuracyofthetext.23AlthoughscholarshavequestionedCooper’svauntedhistoricalaccuracy,24 thenovelist’sdeliberatehistoricalconstructionofthenarrativeremains. Overtheyears,however,thathistoricalstructurehasbeenseverelycompromised.ThefirstAmericaneditiongaveequalweighttothetwopartsof Cooper’scompletetitle:TheLastoftheMohicans:ANarrativeof1757.25 FollowingCooper’sdeath,editionsbegantominimizeandevenexclude thehistoricalsubtitle,therebyemphasizingtheelegiac,mythiccharacter ofthebook. Withinthetext,Cooper’scriticalattitudetowardthepasttakesmany forms.Hisomniscienthistoricalasidesimpugnboththepresenceofthe EuropeanarmiesinAmericaandBritain’sownimpendingimperialdecline.26YetduringhisdescriptionofthemassacreatFortWilliamHenry, hecondemnsnotonlythecourseofhistoricaleventsbutalsotheextant historiography. Late-eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century historians
CompetingFrontiers 97
notedGeneralMontcalm’scallousinactionduringthemassacreofthe British garrison, but they often bowdlerized or dismissed the gruesome eyewitness accounts.27 Cooper scorned these deficiencies and, after recountinghishistoryofthemassacre,sethisroleasahistoricalnovelist abovethatofa“professional”historian.“Thebloodyandinhumanscene ...isnowbecomingobscuredbytime;andthousands,whoknowthat MontcalmdiedlikeaheroonthePlainsofAbraham,haveyettolearn howmuchhewasdeficientinthatmoralcourage...and,ashistory,like love,issoapttosurroundherheroeswithanatmosphereofimaginary brightness,itisprobablethatLouisdeSaintVéranwillbeviewedbyposterityonlyasthegallantdefenderofhiscountry,whilehiscruelapathy ontheshoresoftheOswegoandtheHoricanwillbeforgotten.”28Cooper directedhismostsearingcritiqueathistoriography’sheroicizedrhetoric andimaginativememory,therebyattackingtheverymythicdiscourseof professionalhistorythatSlotkinwouldlaterclaimasinnateandunquestionedwithinTheLastoftheMohicans. EvenCooper’sfictionalprotagonistsareambivalenttowardtheEuropeanpracticeofwritinghistory.Hawkeye’sassaultsonthetruthfulnessof booksandwrittenhistoryaremostfrequent.Duringaconversationwith Chingachgook,thescoutcomparestheEuropeanorwhitewayofrecordingthepasttothatoftheIndian:“Mypeoplehavemanyways,ofwhich,as anhonestman,Ican’tapprove.Itisoneoftheircustomstowriteinbooks whattheyhavedoneandseen,insteadoftellingthemintheirvillages, wheretheliecanbegiventothefaceofacowardlyboaster,andthebrave soldiercancallonhiscomradestowitnessforthetruthofhiswords.”29 Hawkeye’s contrast prefigures the novel’s historical form. The narrative precedingthemassacreatFortWilliamHenryexemplifiestheEuropean practice of writing history. The novel’s fictional narrative evolves from establishedeventsintheFrenchandIndianWarandBritishimperialhistory.Cooper’sopeningchapterbeginsbyrecountingthehistoryofthose events,butratherthancreatingadichotomybetweenthebloodylegacy ofEuropeanhistoryandthemythiclackofhistoryontheAmericancontinent,CooperplacesAmericaandNativeAmericansdirectlywithinthe forcesofhistory:“Therewasnorecessofthewoodssodark,noranysecret placesolovely,thatitmightclaimexemptionfromtheinroadsofthose whohadpledgedtheirbloodtosatiatetheirvengeance,ortoupholdthe coldandselfishpolicyofthedistantmonarchsofEurope.”30Americais notamythicspaceinnocentofhistory,andtheNativeAmericansdonot merely exist outside the forces of western history. They act within it.31 MaguanotonlyactsbutalsorecountsaNativeAmericanperspectiveon
98 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
the European invasion of America and the progress of the French and IndianWar.32AsthereisnoknownwrittenaccountofthewarsbyaNative American,Cooper’sperspectiveisthefirsthistoricalnarrativeofitskind. Late-twentieth-centurystudiesofCooper’snovelmayhaverevolved aroundquestionsofmythandhistory,buteventhoseinterestedinrecovering the historical aspects of Mohicans have ignored events following themassacre.33OncethemassacreisoverandtheBritisharmyhasbeen obliterated,thelandmarksofEuropeancivilizationandhistorydisappear. Magualeadshiscaptivesintothewilderness.DidCooperintendforhistorytodisappearintheworldoftheIndian?Inonesense,themassacreat FortWilliamHenrydoesseparatetheworldoftraditionalEuropeanhistoryfromthemythicworldoftheIndian.Cooper’sfirstAmericanedition consistedoftwovolumesandsplitthenarrativealongthemassacre.Yet thestructureofTheLastoftheMohicansisnotthatofahistoricalnarrativesucceededbyamythicnarrative;instead,Cooper,contraststwoways oftellinghistory.CoopercitedhisNativeAmericansourcesinhispreface,andin1861,hisdaughterSusancitedthefullextentofhishistorical research—notontheeventsofFortWilliamHenry,butonnativehistory andcharacter.34However,Cooperfoundthe“professional”historiesinadequateforthetaskandwasfrustratedbythelackofNativeAmerican perspectivesontheirownhistory.InparttwoofMohicans,heextendshis self-conceivedidentityasanewhistorian.HisEuropeanstyle,including hisrepeateduseoffootnotesandhistoricalasides,virtuallydisappears,in favor of a dramatic narrative. Indian histories are told orally before the wholecommunity.Magua,Chingachgook,Uncas,andTamenundarethe principalhistoriansafterthemassacre.Maguaisthedramatichistorianof hispeople,butCooperdoesnotquoteMaguadirectly.Instead,Cooper placesrhetoricaldistancebetweenthewhitereaderandtheeventsthat he,asahistorian,mediatesandinterprets.35 YetCooperdoesnotimposearigidracialseparationbetweenthetwo modesofhistoriography.JustasNativeAmericantribesparticipatedinthe bloodyEuropeanhistoryoftheFrenchandIndianWarandtoldtheirversionofeventsinthemidstofthestruggle,sothewhiteprotagonistscross theboundariestotherealmofIndianhistory.Inthehopeofsavingthe captives,Duncanassumesmultipleidentities,includingthatofamixedbloodFrenchallyandevenHawkeye,therebytemporarilyrenouncinghis Britishidentityinahostileenvironment.YetitisthebiracialCoraMunro whorecountstheonlytrue“mixed”oralhistoryofevents,asshetellsthe DelawareelderTamenundofhercapture.36WhereasHawkeyeandMagua present irreconcilable perspectives on the abductions, Cora admits
CompetingFrontiers 99
thecrueltyofherEuropeanpeoplewhileappealingtothesuperiorjustice ofTamenundtofreehersister.Ironically,herhistoryoftheeventsactsasa counterpointtothoseofHawkeyeandMagua,andsheintroducesyetanotherversionofthesameeventstoldbyUncas.Cooper’sdeliberateuseof multiplehistoriesisacrucialdevelopmentinhisconceptionofAmerican historiography.Inpartone,hisviewofthemassacreatthefortconflicts withthatoftheacceptedhistoriography,butbytheendofthenovel,he hascreatedmultipleperspectivesonthepast.Althoughthemixed-race CoraandUncasdie,eliminatingracialamalgamationintheNewWorld, Cooper’s mixed historical structure survives.37 Cooper’s construction of himself as a historian, his recognition of the inadequacy of traditional historiography,andhisownattempttorenderalternativeformsofhistory persist throughout the narrative. Viewed in this context, Cooper is not simplythecreatorofanAmericanfrontiermythfoundedonracialexclusionandrigidbinaryoppositionsoranimaginativehistoricalnovelist.In TheLastoftheMohicans:ANarrativeof1757,CoopercreatesthestructureforanewAmericanhistoriography—onethatHollywoodhistorians wouldeasilyadapt.
IndependentHistoricalProduction HollywoodfilmmakershadthepotentialtorepresentthehistoriographicalandracialcomplexitiesofCooper’sAmericanhistorywithoutsacrificing the drama or what screenwriter John Balderston perceived as its qualitiesasahistoricalepic.CimarronalludedtoYancey’smixedstatusin severalkeyscenes.Earlyinthenarrative,Isaiah,ayoungblackboywho stowedawaywiththeCravatsenroutetoOklahoma,copiesYancey’soutfitandcomestochurchdressedasapint-sizedversionofhishero.Yanceylaughswhenheseeshisyouthfulmirrorimage,butSabra,schooled in the South, does not find the implications of this “cimarron” mixing amusing. By foregrounding Cora’s mixed ancestry, the filmmakers had theopportunitytodosomethingsimilar.YetBalderstonconsideredthe NativeAmericanaspectsofthenarrativea“subplot,”therebydistancing EdwardSmall’sfilmfromtwolarge-scalesilentversionsmadebyD.W. Griffith(Biograph)in1909andMauriceTourneurandClarenceBrown (Associated Producers/Universal) in 1920 that had concentrated on the poignantinterraciallovestoryofCora(whoisofWestIndianextraction) andUncas.Balderstonwantedhisfilmtobean“epic.”Toachievethis, thenewfilmhadtoavoidracialambiguityandfocuson“serious”history, themassacre,and“theAnglo-Americanvictorywhichdeterminesthefu-
100 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
tureofthecontinentforalltime.”38Hewassotakenwiththethemeof British-Americanunionthatheplannedtoaddhisownhistoricalcodato theMohicansscript.39Heenvisionedtheendofthefilmculminatingin Wolfe’sroutofMontcalm’sFrenchforcesonthePlainsofAbraham.AlthoughheplannedtoretaintheNativeAmericancharactersandMagua’s abductionoftheMunrogirls,thesesequenceswouldbesubservientto the“serious”historicalepisodes,thedocumentedhistorythatwouldearn thefilmepicprestige. Balderstonhadaimedhisscreentreatmentatindependentproducer Edward Small, who hoped that a successful film would keep his Reliance Studios in business. In 1935 Small decided that Balderston’s vision of American historical epics would be the surest way for him to garnerfinancialstabilityandcriticalpraise,sohehiredBalderston.The screenwriterwasconsciousofhisroleasahistorianandbeganhistreatmentwithasuitablyimpressivetextforeword.Itwasthreeparagraphs, andthereforethreeshots,long,recountingthecourtintrigueandjealousies between France and England, the perspicacity of Prime MinisterWilliamPitt,andhisvisionfortheNorthAmericancontinent.40 Balderston’sensuingnarrativeconcentratedoverwhelminglyonthefirst halfofCooper’snovel,whichdramatizesandcommentsontheactual eventsofthewarandmassacreatFortWilliamHenry.Hawkeyeisstill Cooper’sAnglophobic,colonialhuntsman,butBalderstonhashimadmittheerrorofhiswaysattheendofthefilm:HawkeyejoinstheBritish armyasalegitimatesoldier.Inmanyoftheearlyversionsofthescript, Hawkeye actually helps Wolfe find a way up the cliffs of Quebec and defeattheFrenchforces.41 ScreenwriterPhilipDunnereadBalderston’smaterialatSmall’srequestandsoonwrotehisownversion,buthestillemphasizedthenovel’s historical context. Dunne also maintained a pompous three-paragraph foreword that focused on the European political forces controlling the war, and he even opened his version with a superimposed date, 1757. Withtheassistanceofascriptpolisher,thetextforewordhadbeencutto onlyoneparagraphbyOctober.Still,thefilmmakerscontinuedtocling toTheLastoftheMohicansasalegitimatehistoricalepic,andwellinto 1936, they projected a text foreword that would set the stage for 1757. Balderston’sdreamofconcludinghisFrenchandIndianWarepiconthe PlainsofAbrahamfoundered,however,whenSmall’scompanydeleted itfromthescriptinJune1936.42Itislikelythattheyabandonedthishistorical coda only because of the prohibitive cost of staging yet another “epic”battle.Nevertheless,MohicansremainsatributetotheBritishor-
CompetingFrontiers 101
Textforeword forTheLastof theMohicans (1936).
deal and triumph in North America and the colonials’ union with the mothercountry.Hawkeye’sreconciliationwiththeBritishcauseandhis decisiontojointhearmyinthefinalsequencesofthefilmovershadow anypotentialconsiderationoftheNativeAmericanperspective.Whereas thestructureofCooper’shistoricalnovelarguesforajuxtapositionofthe EuropeanandIndianworldsandtheirwaysofrecordingthepast,Small’s productionconcentratesalmostexclusivelyontheinstitutionalhistoryof theFrenchandIndianWar.WhereasCimarron’stextinsertsweresetto workincounterpointtothecomplexsocialhistoryofanevolvingOklahoma,Mohicans’stextforewordestablishesaEuropeanhistoricalstruggle thatitthenresolvesthroughthecinematicnarrative.Theimagessupport thetext. Smallbasedhisfilm’shistoricalqualityontheaccuracyofthesets, costumes,andlanguage.Tothisend,hehiredindependentresearcherE. P.Lambertinthefallof1935toresearchtheperiodoftheFrenchand IndianWar,tocorrectanyerrorsinthescript,andtoproduceadossierof picturesandexcerptsofprimarytextsforthesetdesigners.Lamberthad providedasimilarserviceforDarrylF.ZanuckinpreparationforCardinal Richelieu(1935),butwhileworkingatFox,hehadaccesstothestudio’s expanding research library, under the direction of Frances Richardson, as well as the Los Angeles and Huntington Libraries. Reliance Studios lackedtheimpressiveresourcesofthemajorstudios,butatthetime,it wasstandardpracticeforstudiostosharetheirresearchfacilitiesandfinds withotherscreenwritersandproductionstaffs.43Thismayhavebeenthe
102 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
Twentieth Century–Fox researchlibrary, ca.1939.
onlyareawhereWarnerBrothersandParamountwouldcooperaterather thancompetewitheachother. Lambert’sresearchlogandbibliographyconstitutedasecondcrucial processintheconstructionofAmericanhistoricalcinema.Thefirstinvolvedthescreenwriter’spersonalresearchforthetreatmentandscript, undertakeneitherinthestudio’sownresearchlibraryorattheLosAngeles Public Library or the Huntington Library in nearby San Marino. Lambert remained on Small’s payroll throughout the production, but hisattitudetowardhistoricalresearchwascurious.HewrotetoSmallin October1935,“Filmfansdonotmindalittlemarginforhistorytowork looselyinwhenitispartofastory,especiallyasingoodhistoriesthere areconflictingaccountsofthesameoccurrence.Theproducerhasthe samerightasapaintertomakehistorypicturesqueandeventsoccurin theordertheyshouldhavehappenedforbestdramaticeffect...wemust notbetooconsiderateofinconvenienttruthwhendramatizinghistory.”44 Lambert knew from his research that history was often conflicted and incomplete.Tohim,cinemawasentertainment,andfewmembersofthe audiencewerelikelytorecognizedeparturesfromthehistoricalrecord. YethiscommentsemphasizetheparadoxofAmericanhistoricalfilmmaking.Ifthefactsthemselveswereoftenobscure,andhistorianswere unreliable,howcouldfilmmakersresistthelureoftheirowndramaticalterations?Inmakinghistoricalfilms,screenwritersusedthesametoolsas historians,oftencoveringthesameground.Somewherealongthispath,
CompetingFrontiers 103
theywereconfrontedbyconflictingloyalties.Beforetheadventofsound, fewwritersorstudioproducersworriedaboutthesediscrepanciesandthe construction of history, but now, screenwriters often devoted as much timetopreparationandresearchastheydidtowriting.Studiolibraries and research departments began to grow, and by the latter half of the 1930s,studioswereadvertisingtheirresearchlibrariesinperiodicalssuch astheLibraryJournalandtheWilsonBulletinforLibrarians.45Critical attentionfocusedonafilm’saccurate“look,”butitwasequallysensitive toafilm’sprojectedattitudetowardhistoryanditsuseofhistoricalevents. AlthoughSmall’sresearchermayhavequestionedtheneedforandadvisabilityofhistoricalaccuracy,hismisgivingswerenotnecessarilyshared bytheprincipalfilmmakers.ThefactremainsthatSmallwantedtomake asuccessfulAmericanhistoricalepic.Todoso,hisscreenwritersfocused onthedocumentedhistoricaleventsinCooper’snovelanddevelopeda historical foreword with which to contextualize their film, while Small hiredafull-timeresearchassistanttodocumentvisualdetail.Yetinfocusingonthehistoricallyverifiableelementsofthestory—namely,the Anglo-AmericanstruggleagainsttheFrenchandIndians—Smallavoided what Cimarron chose to do in 1931: present multiple perspectives on America’smultiracialpastandengagetherhetoricofitsfoundingmyths ofnationalhistory.
The“TrueHistory”ofRamona It was left to Lamar Trotti and Twentieth Century–Fox to attempt the nextcritiqueofinstitutionalAmericanhistoryandthenotionoffrontier conquest. Again, the foundation for the historical critique was not the workofaprofessionalhistorianbutthatofanovelistinterestedinpublicizingthedarkersideoftheAmericanpast.And,aswithCooper,Helen HuntJacksonfocusedontheexperiencesofamixed-racewomantodestabilizetraditionaltriumphantnarrativesoftheWest.ThehistoryofRamona beganin1881withthepublicationofJackson’shistoryoftheU.S.government’spolicytowardNativeAmericans,ACenturyofDishonor.46Itwas thefirstattempttoindictthegovernment’sIndianpolicywiththetools andrhetoricofathoroughlyresearchedandarguedhistory,butinspiteof hereloquence,Jackson’sbookwaslargelyignoredbythepublic.Jackson hadhopedthatherhistorywouldchangethecurrentgovernmentattitude towardNativeAmericans.Sheturnedawayfromtraditionalhistoryand adoptedtheformofthenovelinordertocaptureheraudience.47Asshe wrotetoherfriendsAntonioandMarianaCoronelinNovember1883,“I
104 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
amgoingtowriteanovel,inwhichwillbesetforthsomeIndianexperiencestomovepeople’shearts.Peoplewillreadanovelwhentheywillnot readseriousbooks.”48 Yetinwritinghernovel,JacksonadheredcloselytoanumberofpersonalhistoriesinSouthernCalifornia’srecentpast.In1883shewasin theLosAngelesareaatthebehestoftheCommissionofIndianAffairsto investigatethelivingconditionsoftheCaliforniamissionIndians.Later thatyearshevisitedtheGuajomeRanchoofSenoraYsobelCouttsnear theSanLuisReyMission,aswellastheCamulosRanchointheSanta Claravalley.HerfriendstheCoronelssuppliedherwithmanystoriesof DoñaYsobeldelValleandherson,ex-senatorReginalddelValle,andthe delValles’ward,thelittleIndiandaughterofaPiruchief.Shealsoheard thesadhistoryofJuanDiego,aCahuillaIndianwhohadbeenshotfor allegedhorsestealingbySamTempleinOctober1877.TheIndianhada smallfarmintheSanJacintomountains,wherehehadlivedwithhiswife andbaby.Atthetrial,TempleclaimedthatJuanDiegohadattackedhim withaknife.TheprotestationsofDiego’swifewerenotrecordedbythe court;sinceshewasanIndian,hertestimonywasnotvalid.49AndJackson alsoheardrumorsoftheelopementofRamonCorralezandahalf-breed Indiangirl,LugardaSandoval.Basedontheseevents,Jacksonchronicled thelifeofthehalf-IndianRamona,wardoftherichMorenofamily.When Senora MorenotellsRamonaofherheritage,the girl leaves the ranch andtheloveoftheMoreno’sonlysonforalifewithherIndianpeople. ShemarriesAlessandro,achief’sson;sheseestheirlandtakenbywhite settlers,herpeoplekilledbythosesame“Americans,”andherhusband shotbyawhitemanforhorsestealing. Ramona’slifesucceededincapturingtheattentionofanAmerican publicthatwasindifferenttotraditionalhistoriesandexposésofgovernmentabuse.50Surprisingly,thatsameaudienceeagerlysoughthistorical confirmationofRamona’slifeontheMorenoranchandinTemecula. Over the years, news articles, books, and photographs accumulated a historyandanannotatedbibliographyforJackson’snovel.Thefactthat Jackson’scharacterswerecompositesofrealpeopleandthathertaleof Alessandro’sdeathwasanattempttopreservesomeofthesadhistoryof JuanDiegoonlyfueledtheAmericanpublic’scuriosity.Jacksonwasahistorian,andRamona’snarrativereflectedherbackground.AsC.C.Davis wroteinhisTrueStoryofRamona,“Itisdoubtfulifanauthoreverbefore hadtakensuchpainsashadMrs.Jacksontopreparefortheproduction of‘Ramona.’...Shefeltthatpubliccriticismwouldbemerciless,and fullyrealizedtheimportanceofunquestionedcorrectnessineveryposi-
CompetingFrontiers 105
tiontaken.”51In1881JacksonhadwrittenacounterhistoryofAmerican expansion, a lone counterpoint to George Bancroft’s glorious purge of thecontinent,52butitwasonlywhenherarsenaloffactswasboundto thepowerofamarginalpersonalhistorythatthepublictooknoticeand clamoredforfacts. Sometimesthismarketforhistorytookanamusingturn.Onehistoriancomplained,“ThereisscarcelyasettlementsouthoftheTehachapi thatisnotpointedouttothetravelerasthe‘homeofRamona.’Shewas marriedateverymissionstationfromSanDiegotoSanLuisObispo,if one could credit local legend.” Many of these same skeptics joined in thesearchtopindowntherealRamona,dismissingonewoman’sclaim becauseshewasjusta“commonIndian.”53Jackson’stragichistoryand the public’s desire to make Ramona “real” fused each year in the RamonapageantsheldatthefootofMountSanJacinto.There,intheactual landscapeJacksonwroteabout,actorsre-createdhercharacters.Programs proclaimed that their mission was “instrumental in preserving a bit of Californiahistory,”andtheychronicledJackson’shistoricalsources,even providinganabbreviatedhistoryofNativeAmericanculturefromancient timestothecomingofCatholicismandtheEnglish.Thesubjectofthe pageantwas,ofcourse,thelastchapterintheIndians’tragicstory,and theprogramsidentifiedlate-nineteenth-centuryCaliforniahistoryas“the Ramonaperiod.”54 Ramona was also screen material and was filmed unobtrusively in 1910,1916,and1928,thelastasilentversionstarringMexicanactress Dolores Del Rio.55 Although Hollywood whitewashed Cora Munro’s mulatta identity, filmmakers were evidently less worried about mixedblood mestiza heroines. What distinguishes the 1936 version from the othersilenteffortsistheunderlyinghistoricalimpulsedrivingfilmmakers Darryl F. Zanuck and Lamar Trotti. From the inception of Twentieth Century–Foxin1936,ZanuckplannedadiversesetofAmericanhistorical films. Cimarron had proved that mixed-race American protagonists couldsurviveattheboxoffice.Ramonawouldbealessflashyandmore seriouscounterparttowildNewYorklifeinTheBowery(1935),andby April 1935, Zanuck had assigned Lamar Trotti to write a treatment of Jackson’smaterial. Trotti,likemanyotherscreenwritersoftheearlysoundera,wasaformerjournalist,trainedtogetthestorydownonpaperconciselyandbefore thedeadline.Anex-reporterfromAtlanta,TrottibecameFoxscreenwriterDudleyNichols’sprotégéin1933.Throughouttheearly1930s,they wouldworktogetherwithJohnFordonWillRogers’sAmericanapieces.
106 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
TheyalsocollaboratedonasemibiographicalscriptaboutChicagomayor AntonChermak(TheManWhoDared,1934),whohadrecentlytaken anassassin’sbulletintendedforPresidentFranklinRoosevelt.Trottiliked Fordandwouldworkwithhimagainatthecloseofthedecade,butZanuckshapedhisday-to-dayexperiencesatthestudio.Itwouldbeoneof the most prolific and rich partnerships in screenwriting history. Under Zanuck’ssupervision,Trottiwouldproduce,bothoncommandandon spec,aseriesofAmericanhistoricalscreenplaysthatsubtlygraspedthe nuancesofAmericanhistoriographyandthecounterpointoftextandimage.56RamonawasthefirstoftheseindependentprojectsatTwentieth Century–Fox. AlthoughHelenHuntJackson’snovelbeginswithoutahistoricalapologiaoranintroductioncitinghersourcesandargument,LamarTrotti’s storyoutline,writteninApril1935,does.57Hebeginsbycontextualizing lifeinCaliforniaduringthemiddleofthenineteenthcenturyandthen setsahistoricaltoneforthepicturecloselyakintoJackson’sCenturyof Dishonor:“ThisistheperiodjustfollowingtheacquisitionofCalifornia bytheUnitedStates....HeretoforetheRedManhasbeenunderthe dominationofthemissions;andwhileinjusticesmayhavebeendone,the Indianatleasthasbeenclothedandfed,andhisspiritualneedsattended to.TheearlyAmericanpioneer,however,haslittleornosympathyforthe nativewhomheproceedstorobofhisland,hiscattle,andhisdignity.”58 Trotti’soutlineadherestoJackson’snovelandthemajorconflictbetween Ramona’s ancestry and the racial prejudices of Senora Moreno. Trotti emphasizes the moment when Ramona discovers who she is and what herancestrymakesher;RamonaacceptshermixedIndianidentitywith prideandjoy,notshame,asMorenowouldhaveit.59WhenRamonaand FelipeelopeandaremarriedbyFatherGaspara,TrottiplansGaspara’s denouncementoftheU.S.government’streatmentoftheCaliforniaIndians. Trotti later outlines the destruction of native villages, American settlers’theftofAlessandroandRamona’sfarm,andJohnFarrar’smurder ofAlessandro. Trotti’sfirstdraftofthescreenplayreplicatedhisoutline,butstrangely, itlackedtheoriginalopeningtitle.ScriptpolisherPaulHerveyFox,under Zanuck’sdirection,reproducedasuitablysympatheticforeword:“Slowly thefirstAmericansettlerscametodriveoutthepicturesquetribesofIndians...manyofwhomhadbeeneducatedintheearlymissions.”This foreworddrewattentiontothe“historicalbackground”andRamona’sstatusasapersonofmixedblood.LaterdraftsbyFoxandTrottireworded ittosharpenthecritiqueoftheAmericanpioneers,whowere“driving
CompetingFrontiers 107
everythingbeforethem.”60Althoughtherestofthescriptremainedthe same,thetoneoftheforewordwasrewordedandchangedhalfadozen timesbeforeshootingbeganinthelatesummerof1936.Zanuckhimself establishedtheopeningtitleandcontinuedtoincludesomekindofhistoricalexposition,butasshootingtimedrewnear,hecutTrottiandFox’s criticismofAmericansettlersinCaliforniaandreferencestothe“historicalbackground”ofJackson’snovel.Zanuck’sexperiencewithThePublic Enemy’sinflammatoryforewordandthecensors’sensitivitytohistorical critiqueshadmadehimequallyawareoftext’scapacityfordirectandprovocativeaddress.Ramona’sracialhistorythusbecame“apastoralbackground”for“herimmortalromance”andwasaccompaniedonscreenby bucolicshotsofCaliforniaorangegrovesandsheep.61AlthoughZanuck retainedthetelltalehistoricalattributeofatextforeword,heerasedany traceofahistoricalpointofviewfromthetext.Instead,thebrutalityofthe AmericanpioneerswasshownonlyintheimagestakenfromJackson’s narrative.Zanuck’saction,undoubtedlyintendedtodispelJackson’santiAmericanovertones,transferredthepotentialmeansofcritiquefromtext toimage.WhereasAnnieOakley’sslyjokesaboutnewspapersanddime novels had been built into the screenplay, Zanuck’s more arbitrary cut conveyed a similar historical critique of text through images. But from thebeginning,TrottideliberatelyconstructedRamonaasahistoricalfilm andcalledattentiontoitshistoricalnaturewiththeuseoftext. ZanuckmadetheunusualdecisiontofilmRamonainTechnicolor. Experimental and notoriously expensive, the Technicolor process was chosenbyastudioonlyforitsmostprestigiousfilms.Manyofthemost prominent were adaptations of historical novels, such as Becky Sharp (1935).ButinRamona,colorrevealstheproblematicdimensionsofracialhistoryintheAmericanWest.ActressLorettaYoung’salabasterskin belies Ramona’s mixed-blood heritage. Thus, with no physical mark to identifyherinherentracialdifference,shedressesthepartwhenshediscoversandadoptsherheritage.Raceisthereforedepictedassomething tobeperformedincostume,asanessentiallyunstablevisualandhistoricalconstruct.Ramona’ssenseofracialinjusticeisheightenedbythevery visualambiguityofrace.Withoutthejustificationof“color”difference, thediscourseofManifestDestinyfallsapart,andtheviciousexpansionin Californiaisrevealedforwhatitis:capitalisttheft.Criticswereinitially uneasy about Zanuck’s decision to cast Young as Ramona. As Zanuck wrotetoattorneyNeilMcCarthy,“Iwasseverelycriticizedbymyassociatesaswellasbythenewspapercolumnists...forimaginingthatLoretta Youngcouldplayahalf-Indian.”62
108 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
Zanuck’s compelling version of Ramona’s history confronted the deepconsequencesofAmerica’sdishonorableIndianpolicyand,inforegroundingtheexperienceofamixed-racewomanonthewesternfrontier, projectedanalternativeHollywoodwestern.Intheclassicwesterngenre, the division between white and red is as stark as that between civilizationandsavagery.Theinterracialwesternheroorheroinetransgressesnot onlyracialbarriersbutalsothetraditionalcategoriesofgenre.Andlike YanceyCravat,RamonaisnotragicmestizaorvanishingAmerican—she survives.Althoughmanyfilmreviewersrhapsodizedabouttheclassicbucolicromance,oneofTime’sfilmcriticscaughtthesocialcritique:“Ramonaherselfishalfhistorical,halffictional,halfwhiteandhalfIndian, but there is nothing half-way in the manner in which Twentieth Century–Foxhashandledherbiography.Ithasusedthe simple framework asabitterdisquisitiononthetraditionalwhitemethodsofdealingwith Indians,civilizedorraw.”63Yetforallitssubversivehybridity,mostlabeled thefilma“quietclassic.”Afterall,neitherJacksonnorTrottiandZanuck gaveRamonaanactiveroleinwritingherownhistoryandcriticizinggovernmentpolicytowardNativeAmericans.UnlikeEdnaFerber’smestizo newseditorYanceyCravat,Ramonahasnoaccesstotextandtheinstrumentsofhistoriography.Onlywhite,educatedHelenHuntJacksoncould givethemixed-racewomanaplaceintheAmericanpast.
SellingHistoryatParamount By 1935, Howard Estabrook’s policy of consulting multiple historical sources in constructing a historical screenplay was an established practice,andbytheendofthedecade,asmallgroupofscreenwritersheaded by LamarTrottiandNunnallyJohnsonwereknown almost exclusively fortheirhistoricalwork.Likethenovelistswhosewritingsservedasthe basisforsomanyhistoricalfilmsintheearlysoundera,thesescreenwriters often rebelled against the traditional views of historical events and attitudes cherished by professional historians. Historians, for their part, oftenpubliclycriticizedtheaccuracyofHollywoodfilmsorstudiouslyignoredtheinventionofmotionpictures.Hollywood,inturn,didnotseem toneedthem.Aslongastherewerelibraries,screenwritersdidtheirown research.YetthegrowinginterestinmanufacturingAmericanhistorical filmscausedexecutivesatParamounttotakeachancewithpopularhistorians. AtParamount,CecilB.DeMilleproposedanotherviewoftheepic historical western. In 1935 he and Jeannie Macpherson, his principal
CompetingFrontiers 109
screenwriterandresearchanalyst,turnedawayfrombiblical,ancient,and medievalhistoryandwentbacktotheAmericanfrontier.DeMillehad beenassociatedwiththewesternsincetheearlydaysofhiscareer.Hewas thefirsttofilmTheSquawMan(1914and1918),TheVirginian(1914), andTheGirloftheGoldenWest(1915).Hemadethesedefinitiveversionsatatimewhenthewildlandscapeandlifestyleassociatedwiththe frontierwerestillpresent.These“westerns,”allrecentBelascostagehits setintheimmediatepast,werehandledwithlavishlocationsbutlittleof thetextandvisualhistoricalconsciousnessfoundinGriffith’sTheBirthof aNationandIntolerance(1916).DeMillewouldremakehisfirstsuccess, TheSquawMan,athirdtimeasasoundfilmin1931,butneitherhenorhis screenwritersshowedanyinterestinconvertingthetaleintoaprestigious historicalfilmalongthelinesofTheBigTrail,TheGreatMeadow,andCimarron.Instead,hefocusedhisepictalents,researchers,andwritersonthe declineoftheRomanEmpireinTheSignoftheCross(1932),theaffairof AntonyandCleopatrainCleopatra(1934),andTheCrusades(1935). ButinSeptember1935,DeMilleandMacphersonreturnedtothe epic West. The Plainsman (1936) may have been inspired by the successesofCimarronandAnnieOakley(bothbookswereincludedinthe researchbibliography),butDeMillewasnotinterestedinmultiracialor feministviewsofwesternhistory.64DeMille’sproductioncompanyultimately decided to cull the work of popular historians who had written aboutthelivesofWilliamF.“BuffaloBill”CodyandJamesButler“Wild Bill”Hickok.65ThePlainsmanhadallthetrappingsofaprestigioushistorical film (text inserts, battles, historical figures), but in the text fore-
DeMille’s historicalstaff inthelate 1930s.Jeannie Macpherson isatthefar right.(Author’s collection)
110 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
word,DeMillewrote:“Thestorythatfollowsjoinstogetherthelivesof manymenandwidelyseparatedevents.Itisanattempttodojusticeto theresourcefulnessandcouragethatcharacterizedthePlainsmanofour West.”66DeMilleandhisteamofwritersimpliedthatthehistoricaldetails weresubservienttothepresentgeneration’sneedtohonortheircourage. Inordertoservehistoricalmemory,ThePlainsmanhadtodisregardits principlesasahistoricalfilm.Itwasasignificantadmissioncomingfrom DeMille, an impressive and direct statement of his historical position, wherebybasichistoricalconcernsofchronology,accuracy,andobjectivitywereexorcisedintheinterestsofacinematiceulogy. Whereasotherfilmmakershadusedforewordstoarrogatehistorical authoritytofilmmaking,DeMilleusedtheforewordasascreenagainst thedemandsofhistory.Afterall,thenarrativeusedmajorhistoricalcharactersinawhollyfictitiousaccountofCalamityJaneandHickok’slove affairagainstabackdropofIndianwars.ThePlainsmanwasapanegyricto CodyandHickok,splashygunmenwhofoughtwickedandbloodthirsty Indians in a simple, binary racial clash for a new empire. The plainsmen, whose impoverished, anonymous, blighted push westward may haveevokedamorenuancedaccountofthepost–CivilWarWestandthe NativeAmericanperspective,werewrittenoutofthestory.Afterall,the filmmakershadoriginallywantedRoosevelt’sWinningoftheWestasthe film’stitleandhadtosettleforThePlainsmanwhenDeMillelearnedthat Columbiaownedtherightstothetitle.However,thefilmdidmarkan allianceamongpopularhistorians,filmmakers,andbig-budgethistorical films:CourtneyRyleyCooperandFrankJ.Wilstachreceivedfilmcredit fortheirwork.Itisstilldebatablewhetherthepartnershipandtheresult werehappyones. ButParamountwasimpressedwithDeMille’suseofpopularhistorical material, and in 1936 the studio hired Frank Lloyd to adapt Stuart Lake’sunpublished(andunfinished)historyoftheWellsFargoCompany. Likemanyotherscreenwritersofthisera,Lakehadworkedasareporter, freelancewriter,andpopularhistorian.Lakebelievedthathepossessed a historical connection to the West that no historian could match: he hadspokenwithold-timersBatMastersonandWyattEarp,whocleared upalotof“frontiermysteries.”67Heproclaimedthathisentryintothe historicalworldwouldreplacewesternmythspropoundedbyhistorians withfirsthandaccountsandresearch.Hewouldcleansehistoryandhave abestselleronhishands.ButwhenhewrotetoFrankLockwoodofthe UniversityofArizonaabouthisworkonEarp,Lockwood,likemanyprofessionalhistorians,dismissedLake’sefforts,saying,“Ithinkentirelytoo
CompetingFrontiers 111
muchstresshasbeenlaiduponthebloodyaspectsofTombstone.However,thatiswhatpeoplewant,andIhavenodoubtthatyourbookwillbring inanenormoussale.”68Lake’srapidstyle,withitspresent-tensenarrative andextensiveuseofEarp’sinterviews,wasinmanywaysreminiscentof WalterNobleBurns’sworkonBillytheKid.69Thebooksoldwell,and LakeimmediatelytriedtoselltherightstoHollywood. StudiocorrespondenceandlettersfromLake’sagentspredictedthat when he put the book on the market in late 1931, Cimarron’s success would only help Frontier Marshal become a successful film.70 In fact, bothLakeandMrs.EarpwantedRKOtomakeFrontierMarshal,consideringthefantasticjobithaddonewithCimarron.RKO,however,didnot wanttomakeanotherexpensivewesternanddidnotconsiderWyattEarp a serious historical subject. As the months passed, all the other studios cametoagree.71ItseemedthatFrontierMarshalwouldnevermakeitto thescreen.WhenFrontierMarshaleventuallysoldtoFoxforonly$7,500, Lakemadeitcleartohisagentsandtothestudiothathewantedtobe partofthepackage.Hewantedajobthatwouldenablehimtooverseethe authenticityofthescriptandthepicturefromstarttofinish.72Thestudio ignoredhim.Foxinitiallyhireditstwotopscreenwriters,DudleyNichols and Lamar Trotti, to write the script, apparently intending to make Frontier Marshal a top historical project. But Nichols and Trotti were soonreassigned,andtwostudiohackstookoverthejob.73Lake’sfrequent demandstobemadeatechnicaladviserwerestudiouslyignored.Perhaps peopleknewofhislackofskillasascreenwriterandhisreputationasa troublemaker.Orperhapstheexecutivesreadthebookandrealizedthat itwasnotthetypeofmaterialfromwhichserioushistoricalfilmswere made.FrontierMarshalwasnoscholarlybiography;itwasashoot-’em-up storyofawesternhero,andthatishowitwasfilmedintwolow-budget productionsin1934and1939.74 Afewyearslater,LakesentParamountaten-pagesynopsisofafictionalstorylooselybasedonthehistoryoftheWellsFargoorganization.75 Paramount recognized its potential and, leery of Lake’s tendency to threaten studios with plagiarism suits, paid him $9,000 for the outline, butitdidnothirehim.Afterall,screenwriterswithlittleornohistoricalbackgroundhadprovedthemselvescapableofhistoricalresearchand writing.Lake,however,believedthathehadaprofessionaledge,boasting thatifhestoodforanythinginHollywood,itwasasthepreserverof“good tasteandtheeternalfitnessofthings.”Hisself-appointedjobwastokeep screenwriters from making superficial, formulaic history films because, when left to their own devices, they only “horsed the thing around.”76
112 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
Lake’scopiesofhisnumerous“treatments”stillexist,includinghisWells Fargoopus.Thesetreatmentsrevealthatheneverdepartedfromthemost staidandpedestrianscreenwritingformulas,oftenprefacinghisworkwith pompousprose(“Itistheageoldconflictbetweenthemanandnature,or manandwoman,whomustinevitablysacrificeherwishes”).77Lake’shistoricalwisdomresembledintertitlesfromshortfilmsoftheearly1910s. Lakethoughtthatifhepassedoffthisstoryoutlineandadvertisedhis historicalexpertise,hewouldbeindispensabletothestudioas“theonly man who knows what he’s doing on the project.”78 His agents warned him that Paramount, like all studios, had an extensive research library andmanyresourcesatthedisposalofexperiencedscreenwriters.TheimplicationwasthatHollywoodhadnoneedtoimporthistorianstowrite historicalfilms;instead,throughresearchandreading,screenwriterswere capable of becoming historians themselves. Needless to say, Lake paid themnoattentionandwentstraighttodirectorFrankLloydandproducer William LeBaron, who had produced Cimarron four years earlier. His epistles, sometimes two and three a day, served only to antagonize everyone. Lake’s claims that the screenwriters knew nothing about Wells FargohistorybecameevenmoreridiculouswhenHowardEstabrookwas hiredtowritethescreenplay.Lakepersisted,though,andsoonhehadto obtainnewsoftheproductionfromthetradepapers.Eventuallyhewas hiredbutwaskeptoffthesetbyaseriesofploys.WhenLloydgaveLake acopyofthescripttoreadandcommenton,Lake’sonlyemendationwas tochange“overthePecos”to“acrossthePecos”79(perhapsthisiswhat historicalexpertsarefor).WellsFargowasamoderatesuccessin1937, and Lake took all the credit, telling Lloyd and LeBaron that they had been“dutifullittlepupilsofProfessorLake.”80Thereisnorecordofany responsetothisletter. Itishardlysurprisingthat,afterParamount’sexperiencewithLake, filmmakerswerereluctanttoincludehistoriansintheproductionofhistorical films. In spite of his vision for elevating historical cinema with hisfieryproseandexpertise,Lake’sownviewoffilmmakingwaslow.He referred to westerns, even those he wrote and attempted to sell to the studio,as“oaters”or“horseoperas.”FrankLloyd,WilliamLeBaron,and HowardEstabrookhadloftierambitionsforWellsFargo.BothLeBaron andEstabrookundoubtedlyrecalledthesuccessofCimarronandtriedto emulateit.Estabrookwoulddoctorthescript,addaforeword,andpunctuatethenarrativewithseveraltextinserts.LeBaronspentlavishlyonthe productionandevenproducededucationalpamphletsonthefilmthat includedanextensivebibliography.81Yetforalltheirefforts,filmproduc-
CompetingFrontiers 113
tion had changed. Estabrook no longer had control over his properties andwriting.WesleyRuggleshadadheredtoEstabrook’sscriptin1931, butLloydwasadifferentsortofdirector,anaspiringC.B.DeMilleautocrat.WhereasmuchofCimarron’sproductionpublicityhadrevolved aroundEstabrook’srole,LloydtookallthecreditformakingWellsFargo. YetLloydevidentlylearnedsomethingfromworkingwithLeBaronand Estabrook—ahistoricaldistancewithwhichtocurbhischauvinism.Publicizingthefilm,Lloydwrote:“Notwomencanagreeonwhathistory should be. To some it is falsity, to others a record of crimes; some will makeitachronicleofdoingsbymeninhighplaces;somewillmakeit theessenceofinnumerablebiographies.Whoshallbethehero?Shallthe talebewrittenbytheiconoclast,orbyaCarlyleanhero-worshipper?Shall apedestalbeputup,orahammerbebroughtdownonthefeetofclay?” Butthiswasmerestrategicequivocation;Lloydknewwhattypeofhistory hepreferred:“Iliketoregardhistoryasapageant—averybravepageant, butwithstrugglesandturmoilbehindthemusicandwavingbanners.I wantedapageantsetintheUnitedStates,butwithauniversaltheme.” He continued with an elaborate description of Wells Fargo’s theme: “a struggleforagreatwesternempire”fromtheMexicanWarthroughthe CivilWar.Lloydevenwentsofarastosaythathehopedthefilmwould be seen as a contribution to the history of this era and a tribute to the WellsFargoCompany.82 TheHollywoodcriticsacknowledgedthefilmasParamount’shistoricalfollow-uptoThePlainsman.83TheHollywoodReportercalledthefilm “a cavalcade of early American transportation” and noticed the historicalstructureEstabrookhadgiventothefilm,withitstenepisodesand textinserts.84Anotherreviewerrespondedtothehistoricalstructurebut dislikedtheheavy-handedmannerinwhichLloyddrewattentiontohimselfasahistorian,particularlywhenhisnarrativehadlittleregardforthe historical facts. “The screen is dominated throughout the 115 minutes of the unveiling by the unseen but constantly felt personality of Lloyd thestoryteller,thehistorian,theweaverofvasttapestriesandspinnerof tremendoustales.”85 The memory of Cimarron’s massive production values overcame WellsFargo’sfilmmakers.Lloydsufferedthepresenceofapopularhistorian,spentayearonhisscript,andbolstereditwithmassiveproduction features,historicalinserts,andtableaux.Ithadallthestructuralattributes of a prestigious historical film, but as its reviewers noted, the historical iconographyseemedtooperateindependentlyofaratherweaknarrative. TheNewYorkTimesreviewerwasbewilderedbytheencyclopedic,his-
114 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
tory-ladenplot,“toopreoccupiedwithgreateventstobotheraboutsound characterizations and too hurried with his great events to give any one of them its proper due.”86 The film lacked Cimarron’s counterpoint of visualsocialhistoryandwrittenhistory,ofimagesandwords,ofYancey andSabra.TheWellsFargoCompanywithitswhitetroubleshootinghero shovedeverything(Indians,Confederates,wife,saboteurs)fromitsinexorable path. Estabrook could take and apply the historical structures he hadreinventedwithCimarron;however,WellsFargo’snarrativeoffinancial successandempirehadbeendevelopedbyadirectorwhosharednoneof Cimarron’smultiethnicperspectivesandself-criticalviewofhistoriography. LloydsharedDeMille’sviewofAmericanhistory,andDeMille,equallyimpressedwithLloyd,appliedWellsFargo’staleoftransportationexpansion, troubleshooters,andevenstarJoelMcCreatoUnionPacific(1939). By the mid-1930s, many studios had attempted to produce prestigioushistoricalfilmsthat,indifferentways,respondedtotherevolution ofstructureandsubjectmatterintroducedin1931.AshistorianFrances TaylorPattersonwroteintheNorthAmericanReviewin1937,cinemafinallyachievedoriginalscriptswiththedevelopmentofthehistoricalfilm, “atypeoffilmwhichprobablycapturedtheimaginationsofaudiences for the very reason that it threw off the claustrophobia induced by the dramaandtheprintedword.Staffwritersweresentscurryingtolibraries toconsultoldnewspaperfiles,todigintoobscurebiographies,oreven intothecurrentvolumesofWho’sWho.”87ForPatterson,theAmerican cinemaachievedprestigeandindependencefromtheatricalandliterary adaptationsonlythroughtheriseofthehistoricalfilm.Eventhehistorical novelwastransformedbythenewfilmhistoriography.Thecyclehadgivenscreenwritersaprominenceintheselection,research,andconstructionofhistoricalscriptstheyhadneverpossessed,andfilmhistoriography involvedanexerciseofindependentjudgmentunknowninfaithfuladaptationsofBroadwayhits.ButthemostprestigiousAmericanhistorical films, among them Annie Oakley, The Last of the Mohicans, Ramona, The Plainsman, and Wells Fargo, all involved complex adaptations and emendationsoftraditionalandrevisionisthistoricaltexts.Eachemerged fromitsauthor’sdesiretorevise,embarrass,emulate,oraddtothework oftraditionalhistorians.Thefilmscontinuedtopresenttheattributesof writtenhistoryandtheadoptedstructureofhistoricalcinema,butthey maintained an uneasy relationship with historians and historiography. TheirdifferentinabilitiestosustainacriticalviewoftheAmericanpast indicatedamomentofcrisisanddoubtforhistoricalfilmmaking.
4
TheReturnofOur EpicAmerica,1938–1941 Historyisnotjustamatterofnamesanddates—dryfactsstrungtogether. Itisanendless,dramaticstory,asaliveasthenewsinthemorning’spaper. That’swhyIfeelforthesakeoflivelydramaticconstruction,Iamjustified inmakingsomecontractionsorcompressionsofhistoricaldetail,aslong asIsticktothemainfacts. —CecilB.DeMille,1939
For two weeks in February 1939, New York Times film critic Frank S. NugentfocusedonStagecoach.Hebegan,“Inoneexpansivegesture... JohnFordhassweptasidetenyearsofartificeandtalkiecompromiseand hasmadeamotionpicturethatsingsasongofthecamera.”Thefollowing week,heamplifiedFord’sartistrywiththewestern:“Insimpleterms,he hastakentheoldformula...andhasappliedhimselfandhiscompany toitwiththecare,zen,andcraftsmanshipthatmighthavebeenaccorded thetreatmentofabrightnewtheme.Itisasthoughthepicturehadbeen madetenorfifteenyearsago.”1AlthoughNugentdidnotmentionit,it hadbeententofifteenyearssinceFordhadmadehislasttwowesterns forFox,TheIronHorse(1924)andThreeBadMen(1926).2Accordingto Nugent,withFord’sreturntothegenreheoncedominated,thewestern wascleansedofitssound-era“artifice.” Morethananyotherfilmcritic,NugentstressedJohnFord’sroleas theexclusivecreatorofStagecoach.Hispraisewouldservehimwell;only afewyearslater,NugentwouldreplaceDudleyNicholsasFord’sprincipal 115
116 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
writer.3Buthisreviewhadamorelastingeffectonfilmhistory.Nugent’s praisecreatedtheimpressionofasilent“goldenage”ofthewesternfollowedbyatalkingdrought,withtheimplicationthatonlyFord’sartistry wascapableofreturningthewesterntothemagnificenceithadachieved inthesilentera.Onthisfoundationlayfuturefilmscholarship’screation ofthepurewesterngenre,theemptydecadeofA-levelproduction,and Fordtheauteur’sresponsibilityforitsrenaissancein1939.Infact,Stagecoachisoneofthemostlionizedofwesternslargelybecausefilmtheorists, film historians, John Ford biographers, frontier historians, and cultural historiansuniversallyconsideredthefilmtobetheepitomeofthewestern mythandatemplateforthegenre.4Thefilm’scastofcharacterswasacollectionofwesternarchetypes:thetoughbutboyish-facedcowboyoutfor revenge,thewhorewiththeheartofgold,thecrookedbanker,thesnobbishsoutherngambler,thedrunkenIrishdoctor.Thelandscapeexisted inlyricalcounterpointtothetimelessconflictbetweencivilizationand savagery, between whites and Native Americans. The narrative moved withinthemythicboundariesofthewesterngenreworld.Althoughhistoricaleventsmayhavegeneratedthefilm,itwasnothistorical. After “westerns” such as Annie Oakley; Klondike Annie; Go West, YoungMan;TheLastoftheMohicans;Ramona;andSanFrancisco,NugentmusthaveseenStagecoachasawelcomereturntothelessbaffling, classic,cowboy-and-IndianwesternsknownsinceatleastD.W.Griffith’s TheBattleatElderbushGulch(1913).Stagecoach’snarrativemusthave seemedlikeanescapefromthewordyhistoricaleraofthesoundfilm. Decadeslater,thehighlystructuredandconfinedconceptofthewestern genrecodifiedbyWillWright,JohnCawelti,andothersignoredthemore eclectic,disruptive,andunclassicalhistoricalwesternsof1935–1938and emphasizedthegenre’srepetitiveandtranshistoricalnarratives.5Infact, byamplifyingtheconceptofthe“empty”decadeandexpoundingonthe mythicalpurityofthewesterngenre,thesefilmscholarspursuedtheirown ethniccleansingandtruelineageofthewestern.ItistruethatStagecoach lacks the self-conscious historical trappings of text forewords, historical documents,recognizablehistoricalfigures,andsuperimposeddates.But eventhoughthefilmlacksthetextualpretensionsofaWellsFargo,Nugent’spraiseofStagecoach’svisualsplendordidnotimplyaconcomitant transhistorical,mythicpower.Nugent’sfocusonStagecoach’sreferences tosilentwesterncinemasuggeststhatHollywood’slong-termdominance asthepopularhistorianoftheWestwasalsoanimportantpartofAmericanhistory.Hollywood’sWestandtheactualWesthadfusedinAmerican consciousness,andJohnFord,likehistoriansFrancisParkmanorFreder-
TheReturnofOurEpicAmerica 117
ickJacksonTurnerorFredericPaxson,waswritinganewnarrative—with acamera.Nugent’scriticismpointedtoasubtlereinterpretationofthe varietyandcapacityofhistoriography.AccordingtoNugent,Stagecoach wasapowerfulformofself-consciousfilmhistoriography,notamyth. Although Nugent pointedly ignored talking historical westerns that violatedtheclassicalpurityofthewesterngenre,acloserlookatStagecoach’sproductionhistoryandcontemporaryreceptionrevealsthefilm’s connections to the historical innovations of the past few years. ScreenwriterDudleyNicholswasresponsibleforscriptingStagecoach’shistorical perspective and its deliberate connection to the cycle of sound-era historicalwesterns.6Butin1939,historicalscreenwriters’earlyindependenceandexperimentationwithwesternhistoryweresolidifyingintoa cycleknowntocriticsasthe“superwestern.”Nichols’swaninginfluence overStagecoach’sproductionofAmericanhistory,thecriticaloutcryover NunnallyJohnsonandDarrylZanuck’sre-creationofJesseJames’slife, and Robert Buckner and Hal Wallis’s consolidation of western history at Warner Brothers all indicated escalating conflicts between aberrant Americanvoicesandthegrowingpowerofahistoricalfilmmakingestablishment.
DudleyNichols’sHistoryoftheOldSouthwest When Dudley Nichols (a former New York World reporter) and John FordbegantoeditthescriptofStagecoachinOctober1938,theywere perhapsthemostrespectedfilmmakingpartnershipinHollywood.Since MenwithoutWomenandTheSeasBeneath(1931),theyhaddevelopeda reputationfortautadventuresandpopularsuccess.In1935theindustry honoredthemwithseparateAcademyAwardsfortheirworkonthecriticalsuccessTheInformer.Insubsequentyearstheycontinuedtoworktogether,butwiththemergingofTwentiethCenturyandFox,Fordbecame Zanuck’s property, while Nichols remained at RKO. In spite of Ford’s legendary status (even in 1930s Hollywood), ensuing film scholarship has emphasized Ford the auteur and ignored the inherently collaborativeartistrybehindhiswork.7Butfromtheearlysounderauntiltheearly 1940s,NicholsandFordsharedequalreputationsasfilmmakers.Indeed, as president of the Screen Writers’ Guild and his studio’s preeminent prestigewriter,NicholsmayhavepossessedevenmoreautonomyatRKO thanFordenjoyedunderZanuck’smeticulouseye.Ina1939–1940poll conductedbytheScreenWriters’Guild,Nicholswasvotedtheindustry’s mostadmiredwriter.8
118 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
During the 1930s, many Hollywood insiders acknowledged that screenwritershadmoreautonomyandpoweroverfilmproductionthan directorsdid.Atthetime,thepowerofawriterwasoftenconnectedto hisorherstatusasahistoricalscreenwriter.InadditiontoNichols,LamarTrotti,NunnallyJohnson,SonyaLevien,BenHecht,NormanReilly Raine,SetonI.Miller,JohnBright,RobertBuckner,JohnHuston,and JeannieMacphersonmadetheirreputationsduringthesounderaonhistoricalscripts.VeteranAnitaLoos,whohadbegunwritingintertitlesfor GriffithonIntolerance(1916),maintainedherindependenceatMGM withherperiodfilmSanFrancisco.Loos’sindependentachievementwas remarkable at a studio notorious for its mistreatment of writers and its constant,expensive,andoftenunhappycollaborations.Oftenwhencriticspraisedaprominentdirector’sskill,othersrealizedthatthecreditwas due to the writer. In his 1941 study of Hollywood, Leo Rosten quoted GilbertSeldes:“Ninetypercentofthejudgmentsdeliveredonthequalityofdirectorsisreallyconcernedwiththethoughtsandideaspresented ready-madeforthedirectorstoworkwith.”9 AlthoughFordwashighlyregardedinthepress,withtheexceptionof TheInformer,hehadnotdistinguishedhimselfwithafilmcomparableto TheIronHorse.Zanuckassignedhimtoawidevarietyofproductions.His onlyAmericanhistorical“prestige”picture,ThePrisonerofSharkIsland, fascinatedcriticswithitsunusualhistoricalnarrativebutoweditssuccess moretoitsoriginalscreenwriter,NunnallyJohnson,andtoZanuck.Curiously,forafilmmakerwhowouldeventuallydominatethewesterngenre, itwasFord’scompetitors,Ruggles,Seitz,DeMille,andLloyd,whohad proved the continued draw of the American West in major Hollywood productions. Even Nichols had written a historical western, the Wyatt Earp–basedArizonian,in1935.Ford,eagertoreturntowesternfilmmaking,boughtErnestHaycox’sshortstory“StagetoLordsburg”in1937,but hehaddifficultysellingtheideatoproducers.10Althoughfilmhistorian Edward Buscombe and others have cited this resistance as evidence of Hollywood’sbeliefthatwesternswere“lowerorder,withsmallbudgets, mass-producedinseries,”thiswassimplynotthecase.11HollywoodinvestedintheWest,butonlywhenthescriptswereconnectedwithprestigioushistoricaltopics,suchasthelivesofAnnieOakley,BuffaloBill, andWildBillHickok;thesettlementofCalifornia;andthedevelopment of stage transport. Haycox’s brief story, with no historical characters or references, was not attractive as a potential film. Zanuck, although he respectedFord,didnotwanttospendthemoneyontheslimproperty. HewasalreadyinthemidstofplanningahistoricalwesternwithNun-
TheReturnofOurEpicAmerica 119
nallyJohnson,JesseJames.DavidO.Selznickalsorejectedtheproperty, not simply because it was a western but because it was “some uncommercialpet”ofFord’s.SelznickhaddislikedtheWesteversincehehad beenforcedtoeditTheConquerorsforRKO,buthealsofeltthatFord wasnotagoodenoughdirectortosavethepoorstory.Hewrote,“Iseeno justificationformakinganystorysimplybecauseitislikedbyamanwho, Iamwillingtoconcede,isoneofthegreatestdirectorsintheworld,but whoserecordcommerciallyisfarfromgood.”12ButFordpersisted,and hewantedtheauthorofallhissmashesandfailures,DudleyNichols,to writethescript.IndependentproducerWalterWangereventuallyagreed tohirethem,andStagecoachwentintoproductioninlate1938.Outside ofthesupervisionofamajorstudio,Fordatlastfoundhimselfdirectly involvedwiththescreenwritingprocess. Nichols’s first self-appointed task was to transform the thin narrative that producers had dismissed into a commercial prestige western. By November 1938, he had completed his final shooting script.13 AlthoughNicholsmaintainedtheskeletonofHaycox’sfictionalnarrative, he lengthened and transformed “Stage to Lordsburg” into Stagecoach largelybyaugmentingitshistoricalcontextandsettingthenarrativein New Mexico and Arizona during the devastating Apache wars of the 1880s.Likemanyofhispeers,Nicholsconsultedtraditionalandcontemporaryhistoricalperspectiveswhenreconstructingthebackgroundofthe stagecoach attack and adding the legendary Apache warrior Geronimo tothescript’scast.Studioresearchdepartmentsduringthisperiodwere extensive, but many top writers such as Nichols, Estabrook, and Trotti woulddotheirownpreliminaryresearchforhistoricalscripts.Although Nichols’sresearchnotesnolongerexist,14itislikelythatheturnedtothe growingnumberofpopularhistoriesandmemoirspublishedinthelate 1920sandearly1930saboutGeronimoandtheApachewarsofthe1880s. Paul Wellman’s Death in the Desert: The Fifty Years War for the Great Southwest (1935) was typical of the literature condemning Geronimo’s resistancetotheU.S.government’sIndianpolicy.15ThememoirsofcavalryofficersBrittonDavis(1929)andAntonMazzanovich(1931)offered otherperspectives.16BothhadfoughtagainstGeronimointhe1880sand wrotedetailed,personalaccountsoflifeintheSouthwest. WhileMazzanovichportrayedGeronimoascold-bloodedandcruel,17 Davis,anarmyofficerwhohadbeenpersonallyacquaintedwithGeronimo,wrotearevisionisthistoryoftheApachewarsthatwasmoreinline withWilliamChristieMacLeod’s1928accountofraceintheWest.In thepreface,Davis’seditorevenstatedthatthebookwasintendedtocon-
120 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
tradictthepopularconceptionofGeronimoandtheApachesasvicious barbarians.LikeMazzanovich,Davisdescribedhisaccountas“thetruth aboutGeronimo,”buthedirectedhisangeratthose“whoseknowledge [oftheApache]wasgainedfrombarroomtalk.”18WhereasMazzanovich, anAustrianimmigrant,respondedtotheWestlikeaneffusivetourist,Davis,withhisinsistenceoneschewing“romanticembellishmentorpoetic description,”possessedthetoneofarevisionisthistorian.19Accordingto Davis,Geronimo’sraidshadbeenprovokedbyalegacyofwhitetreachery andinterferenceinApacheculture.Davis’sself-styledroleasahistorian wouldaddGeronimo’sperspectivetocontemporarywesternhistory.20 In spite of Geronimo’s prominence in traditional and revisionist popular western histories, professional historians writing in the 1920s and 1930s ignored the Chiricahua leader, just as they considered Billy theKid,CalamityJane,andWyattEarptrivialsubjectssuitableonlyfor popular history and the cinema. Only in the late 1980s and 1990s did professional historians reassess the racial dynamics of western history andpuncturewhiteestablishmenthistoriographywiththemanyNative American,female,black,Chinese,andMexicanvoicesparticipatinginor opposingthe“development”ofthenation.21Butinthe1920sand1930s, popularhistoryandcinemahadalreadydevelopedanaudienceformarginalandaberrantwesterners,whethertheywereNativeAmericanleaders,womenpioneers,orworking-classgunfighters.Nichols’sconception ofStagecoachasanApachewardramareflectscontemporaneoustrends inpopularwesternhistory,buthisandFord’svisualengagementwiththe pastsurpassedthetextsofbothpopularandprofessionalhistoriography. DudleyNichols’sconcernwithwritingahistoricalwesternwasnot confined to the expansion of Haycox’s pedestrian narrative. Like his screenwritingcolleagues,heplannedanimpressivehistoricalforeword,a textualinvocationofthepasttolendcredencetoFord’svisualnarrative. Thefinalscriptbeginswithaprojectedtextforeword: UntiltheIronHorsecame,theStagecoachwastheonlymeans of travel on the American frontier. Braving all dangers, these Concordcoaches—the“streamliners”oftheirday—spannedon schedulewild,desolatestretchesofdesertandmountainlandin theSouthwest,wherein1885thesavagestruggleoftheIndians tooustthewhiteinvaderwasdrawingtoaclose.Atthetimeno namestruckmoreterrorintotheheartsoftravelersthanthatof Geronimo—leaderofthoseApacheswhopreferreddeathrather thansubmittothewhiteman’swill.22
TheReturnofOurEpicAmerica 121
HisforeworddetailsthewhiteinvasionoftheApaches’landandcontextualizesthenarrativewithaspecificdateandtime.Thetitlesdonotrefer toasimple,mythictimedominatedbyawhiteconflictwithnameless“Indians”;instead,theydescribeaspecifictribeandahistoricApacheleader, Geronimo.Nicholssignificantlyalteredhisfinalshootingscript’sattitude towardtheNativeAmericans’plightinthefaceofwhiteexpansion.An earlierdraft,whichalsobeganwithatextforeword,hadconveyedanuncomplicatedimageofnamelessApachesavagery: UntiltheIronHorsecame,thestagecoachwastheonlymeans oftravelontheAmericanfrontiers....Bravingallperils,these coaches traversed desert and mountain in the untamed Southwestof1885,whenthesavagestruggleoftheApacheIndiansto oustwhitesettlerswasdrawingtoaclose.23 Here,thestagecoach,asymbolofcivilizationinthedesert,istheheroof thefrontier.Geronimoisnotmentioned,andtheApacheshavenofearlessleader.Insteadofrefusingto“submit”to“thewhiteinvader”asthey do in the final script, these Apaches merely attempt to fight the white settlers.Evidently,JohnFordworkedwithNicholsonthescriptfromlate October to early November as they got ready for preliminary shooting. Theresultwasalongerandmorehistoricallynuancedforeword,oropeningtitle. Since Cimarron’s manifold deployment of text inserts eight years before,texthadbecomethedefinitivefeatureofhistoricalfilmmaking. Whether conveying an attitude of eulogy, criticism, or irony toward its historicalsubject,theprojectionoftextonscreenwasanimmediatetriggertofilmmakers’andaudiences’senseofahistoricalfilm.Considering allitsconnotationsintermsoftheestablisheddocumentationandreputationoftraditionalwrittenhistory,texthadthepotentialtolendcinema anewandserioushistoricaldimension.ForNicholsandFordtobegin Stagecoach with a text foreword suggests components of the film’s history hitherto unrecognized by late-twentieth-century film criticism: the filmmakers’ approach to the West connected Stagecoach to a legacy of historicalwesternsandtoaself-consciouspreoccupationwithquestions ofhistory. Butforsomereason,thistextforewordwascutbeforethefilm’snationalrelease.Withouttheprologue,Stagecoach’sattitudetowardhistory isnotdirectlyortextuallyconstructedinrelationtotheacceptedvocabulary of historical filmmaking in the early sound era. In the screenplay,
122 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
theconquestoftheWest,thedispossessionoftheIndiansbythe“white invaders,” and the refusal of Geronimo and his people to “submit” are alldirectlystatedfromtheoutset,complicatinganysimpleviewofthe filmasaviolentracialmyththatdeniesanIndianperspective.DidFord cutthisforewordinearly1939beforehefinishedshootingorbeforethe film’srelease,perhapsbecausehewantedtoavoidcreatingahistory-book western?Thisseemsunlikelyforseveralreasons.AlthoughNicholscreatedthetextforewordfortheroughdraftbeforeFordinvolvedhimselfin thescript,thetextsurvivedtheirintensiveworksessionsinOctoberand November.FordnotonlylikedNichols’sforewordbutevenexpandedit; thetextprologueinthefinalshootingscriptistwiceitsoriginalsize.The prologuewasthusalong-termcomponentoftheplannedfilm. Forddid,however,deleteNichols’sopeningsequencethatdescribed Geronimo’srampageinthesouthwesternterritoriesandforegroundedhis fearfuleffectonthetownspeopleandthestagecoachpassengers.Inthefinalshootingscript,whenthesheriffwarnsthepassengersthatGeronimo isontherampageandadvisesthattheytravelattheirownrisk,thepedestriansoverhearandwhispertheApache’snameinafearfulcrescendo.24 Fordevidentlycutthisshot,orseriesofshots,thatwouldhavecontextualizedGeronimo’sreputationasathreattobothestablishedsettlements andisolatedoutposts. ForddidnotcutNichols’sspecificprovisioninthescriptforastunningclose-upofGeronimo.25FordactuallyshotGeronimofullfaceashe lookeddirectlyintothecamera—oneofonlytwosuchclose-upsinthe film (the other is the first shot of Ringo). Geronimo’s direct confrontation with the camera and his look of concentrated menace, intensified by a low-angle shot, fracture the insularity of the classical western narrative and the spectator’s distance from the film’s historical narrative. Geronimo’sstareimplicatesthewhiteaudienceinhis1885responseto thewhite“invasion”oftheSouthwest.ChiefWhiteHorse’sthin,scarlike mouth;deepcheekfurrows;narrow,close-seteyes;andpiercingstareare allrecognizableattributesofGeronimo.TheChiricahualeadersatforhis likenessmanytimesafterhissurrenderin1886.26Indeed,thefilm’scloseupisits“photograph”ofGeronimo,takennotincaptivitybutwhenthe Apache’sfearednameandreputationcoexistedwithhisdefiantfeatures. TheshotalsoprovidesacloserviewofGeronimothananycontemporary photographicportrait.Most,likethefamedA.FrankRandallphotograph, arefull-orhalf-lengthportraitstakenfromadistance.Inonesense,Stagecoach’sclose-upseemstopresent,ifonlymomentarily,abettersenseof Geronimoandofhistory.
TheReturnofOurEpicAmerica 123
Close-upofGeronimo. (Stagecoach)
In a famous article on the dinner-table sequence in Stagecoach, Nick Browne demonstrated Ford’s deliberate distance from the formal, identifying,point-of-viewstructuresofclassicalHollywoodcinema.27Althoughthesequenceshowssociety’sostracismofDallas,Browneargued thatFord’spresentationofRingo’sreaction,hisclosesympatheticshotsof Dallas,andareestablisheddistancefromthesceneallcausetheaudience torejectthedominantviewofsocietyembodiedbythepropersoldier’s wife, Lucy Mallory. But Ford truly subverted traditional forms of audienceidentificationinhispresentationofGeronimoandtheChiricahua perspective. In the film’s final battle, as the white passengers fight the Apaches,Fordintegratedmultipleshotsofthemovingstagecoach.Most of these show the stagecoach moving forward to the left of the frame, withtheIndianridersgainingontheright.Audiencesarecloselyaligned withthestagecoachpassengersorpositionedinfrontofthecoach(like a Lordsburg citizen or cavalry officer looking out onto the desert). Yet atonepoint,Fordcrossesthe180-degreelineofaction,“violating”the conventionsofHollywoodediting.Inthatshot,thestagecoachisshown underattackinthedistance,movingforwardlefttoright.Ford’schoice, longunderstoodasamistakeineditingbylate-twentieth-centuryfilmhistorians,wasnomistake.28Although,asinthecaseofLucyMallory’spoint ofview,wemaybeledtorejectthisstructureofidentification,wearestill seeingthestagecoachfromtheApachepointofview. Stagecoach’sunusualifabbreviatedportrayaloftheApacheperspectiveandthevisualandverbalpowerofGeronimo’snameandfiguregive himacinematicpresencethroughoutthefilm.Itwastheonlymajorfilm
124 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
ThefinalchaseinStagecoach:WhosesideisFordon?
in1939thatevenacknowledgedtheNativeAmericanpointofviewinthis supposedreturnofthewesternmyth.ButNativeAmericanswerenotthe only“aberrant”groupsinvestedwiththeirownperspective.Southerners HatfieldandLucyMallory,thoughnominallysociety’sarbitersofmannersandprivilege,aremarginalenemiesintheWest.EnroutetoLordsburg,DocBoonegloatsoverhisstatusasaformerUnionofficerserving underGeneralPhilipSheridan(wholaterbecameaninfamousIndian
TheReturnofOurEpicAmerica 125
killer).ItwasNicholswhodecidedtomakeHaycox’sanonymousarmy wifeandgamblersoutherners.Nichols’sandFord’sattitudestowardthe Southwerehighlyambivalentthroughouttheircareers—unlikethatof mostoftheircolleagues,whotendedtolionizesouthernqualitiesasthey traveledwest—butStagecoachdisparagesthehoity-toityculturaltrappings ofHatfieldandMallory.Inboththefinalshootingscriptandthefilm,the South is the epitome of the civilization from which Ringo and Dallas happily escape at the end. Nichols took this attitude toward the South even further in his final script. During the last stagecoach battle with theApaches,DocBooneshoutsashekillsanApache,“Gotya,Johnny Reb!”therebyconflatingtheformerConfederaterebelswiththeApache rebels.29Boththeserebelforceswereessentiallydestroyedbytheassault ofanewwaveofwhitecivilization.FordmayhavethoughtthatNichols wenttoofarhere;thelinewascut. Although Ford’s transformation of the opening narrative sequence, hisdeviationsfromNichols’script,andhisdeletionofDocBoone’sline inthelastsequenceallsuggestanefforttocurbNichols’scomplexhistoricalallusions,manycriticsfocusedonthescreenwriter’srole.30Afterthe premiereandreviews,Nichols,perhapsworriedthathisacclaimwassouringafutureworkingrelationshipwithFord,soothedhisoldfriendwitha letter.“Iftherewaseverpicturethatwasthedirector’spicture,”hewrote, “itwasthatone,andItriedtomakethatcleartoeveryonewhocomplimentedmeinNewYork.”Hecontinued,“Itseemedtomeinsomeof thenoticesIreceivedunduementionandItriedtosetitstraight.”31Curiously,inbothmajorprintsofStagecoach,thecreditsplacedNichols’s nameasscreenwriterbeneaththatofErnestHaycox,whowrotetheoriginal short story. This reversed the etiquette of motion picture crediting, whichalwaysgaveprecedencetothescreenwriter.Asonedetectsfrom Nichols’s letter to Ford, many speculated that the director might have done this deliberately to diminish Nichols’s role in authoring the film. Althoughthissurprisingpostproductionattackmayhaveinitiallyirritated Nichols,hehastenedtodefendFordinthesameletterandevenprofessed what“averyhappycollaborator”hehadbeenandstillhopedtobe.Ford wassoothed,ifonlytemporarily.HeandNicholswouldworktogetheron onlyonemorefilmduringthatperiod,TheLongVoyageHome(1940). AlthoughitearnedNicholsanotherAcademyAwardnomination,itwas notthenconsideredoneofFord’sgreatachievements. In spite of Ford’s resentment and possible invidious behavior, the screenwriter’sprojectforStagecoachsucceeded.ReviewerspraisedNichols’sscript,butevenmoreprevalentwastheiremphasisonStagecoach’s
126 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
historicalunderpinnings.Accordingtothesereviews,Stagecoachrevived Americanhistoryinfilmsbyre-creatingtheSouthwestduringGeronimo’s lastraid.32StagecoachwastruetobothwesternhistoryandtheHollywood historyoftheWest.LifemagazinehighlightedStagecoachasthemovieof theweekinlateFebruary,beforethefilm’sgeneralrelease,butinsteadof summarizingthefictionalplot,thearticlebeganwithanexpandedversionofNichols’sprologue:“TherailroadcametoArizonain1878,but aslateas1885youtraveledoverlandtoLordsburgbystage.”Itcontinued withadetailedaccountofthehardshipsapassengerencounteredonthe two-day,170-milerun.“ButtherealmenaceoftheArizonaOverland,” Liferemindeditsreaders,“wastheIndians.TheverynameofGeronimo madethepassengersblanchwithterror.”33Life’sreviewisfurthertestimonynotonlythatthescreenwriter’sprologuewasincludedintheoriginal filmversionbutalsothatitmadeapowerfulifsomewhatskewedimpressiononaudiencesin1939. Of course, contemporary reviewers did not attribute the film’s success merely to Nichols’s historical influence. Ford received an incredibleamountofcriticalandpopularpraiseforStagecoach.Butironically, consideringtheauteur’slegendaryreputationasanartist,hisdecisionto cuttheprologueandmanyoftheobvioushistoricalelementsseemsto havebeenbasedonaneedtoassertcontrolovertheproductionatthe expenseofthehigh-profilescreenwriter,ratherthanonanaestheticdesiretoreinventthewesternorconnectStagecoachwiththemythicpastof silentfilm.Nichols’spartialdefeatonStagecoachmayhavesymbolized aturningpointforboththepowerofthescreenwriterandtheconstructionofwesterncinematichistoricaldiscourse.Inlate1942,afterhehad partedcompanywithFord,Nicholswouldcommentthatthestudiocompromisedcinema’spotentialbydisempoweringthewriter.Bothheand TwentiethCentury–Foxwriter-producerNunnallyJohnsonwouldsense thewaningpoweroftheHollywoodwriterandattemptdirectorialcareers inthe1940s.34Nonetheless,in1942,Nicholslookedbackonhiswork andconcluded,“Idevoutlybelieveitisthewriterwhohasmaturedthe filmmediummorethananyoneelseinHollywood.”35 In1943,NicholsandtheheadoftheTheatreGuild,JohnGassner,publishedacollectionoftwentyofHollywood’sbestsound-erascreenplaysfor popularconsumption.Gassner’spraiseforStagecoachcenteredonNichols’ssophisticatedreconsiderationofthenation’swesternpast.Hewrote: The representation of American history and ideals has, in fact, added not a little weight to the screen’s output, and can add a
TheReturnofOurEpicAmerica 127
greatdealmore....Arealisticexaminationofourpast,aswellas ofthepresentinrelationtoourpast,isimperative,andanimpressivebeginningwasmadebyDudleyNichols’Stagecoach....The “western,”regardlessofitssuperficialityandnaiveté,represented theAmericandreamofindependenceandvirility—butonajuvenilelevel.AsStagecoach,aswellasanumberofotherscreen storieslikeThePlainsmanandWellsFargo,demonstrate,thestory oftheWestisnotinherentlyweddedtopuerilities.36
RebelsagainsttheRailroad OneofthemostprominentwritersinHollywood,andonedirectlyconnectedtotheriseoftheAmericanhistoricalfilm,wasformerGeorgiaand NewYorkreporterNunnallyJohnson.WhenJohnsonmovedfromParamounttoFox,heandDarrylZanuckembarkedonamassiveAmerican historicalcycle.Infact,JohnsonwassocloselyassociatedwithZanuck’s visionthatintheirfirstmajorAmericanhistoricalfilm,theReconstruction-eraaccountofDr.SamuelMudd’strialandimprisonment,ThePrisonerofSharkIsland,Johnsonwasthefilm’sassociateproducer.Hewould lateractinasimilarcapacityonSlaveShip(1937)andJesseJames(1939). ReleasedamonthbeforeWangerpremieredStagecoach,JesseJameswas ZanuckandJohnson’smajorprestigepictureof1939.Itwasalsothefirst importantfilmoftheyear,andFoxhadpreparedaudiencesforitsarrival withaspateofpublicitythatfocusedonthefilm’snotoriousheroes.37 In the December 1938 issue of Liberty magazine, journalist Helen GilmoreaskedJohnsonwhygunfighterswerecomingbacktoA-feature Hollywoodproductions.Johnsonansweredthatalthoughgunfightershad neverreallygoneoutofstyle,JesseJames’smajoraudiencepullwouldbe itshistory.Hethenproceededtoreadwhatwouldbetheentiretextofthe opening frames. His foreword narrated American history following the Civil War, when “the eager, ambitious mind of America turned to the winningoftheWest.”AccordingtoJohnson,therailroadwasthesymbol ofthisnewindustrialage,butitwasnotaneraofunalloyedprogress:“The advanceoftherailroadswas,insomecases,predatoryandunscrupulous. ...Wholecommunitiesofsimple,hardypioneersfoundthemselvesvictimized by an ever-growing ogre—the Iron Horse.” Johnson explained JesseandFrankJames’srisetofameaspartoftheclimateoflawlessness, thedissatisfactionwithAmerican“development,”andthevictimization ofthepioneers.38 Afterhisdramaticreadingforthepress,Johnsonsupposedlyshuthis
128 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
script with a flourish and assured Gilmore that the studio was not glorifying the James brothers but presenting important facts about an era previouslyneglectedbythescreen.Johnsonhadbeenscriptinghistorical filmssince1934,andheknewthevalueofinjectingimpressivehistorical iconographyandresearchintoaperiodnarrative.Thetextualbackground oftheReconstructioneraandtheriseofindustrializationgavedepthto legendarycharacterssuchasFrankandJesseJamesandinvestedthefilm withanauraofprestige.JesseJamesrepresentedasublimationofZanuck’s gangstercycle,wherehistoryhadbeentoocloseforthecensors’comfort. ButasJohnsonremindedreadersin1938,nineteenth-centurygangsters could not possibly be bad examples subject to censorship, since “those timeshavepassedforever.” Johnson’s lengthy prologue, which would eventually involve three textsuperimpositionsinthefinalfilm,introducesmanyconflictsbetween America’spastandfuture.ThetextforewordandtheJamesbrothers’lives beginaftertheCivilWarhasended.TheUnionisrestored,butwiththe advanceoftherailroads,anewlawlessagedevelops.Themassiveforeword,firstoutlinedin1937bywriterHalLong,concentratedontheundersideofprogressivebusiness,as“theruthlessrailroadspushedforward tonewfrontiers.”Theemphasiswasonindustrialcorruption.“Hoodlums, abettedbycrookedpoliticiansandfinancedbyavariciousrobberbarons, capitalizedonthedevelopmentofthefertilevalleyswhichlinedtheMississippi formiles.Simple,hardyandGod-fearingpioneers, real owners ofthelandfromwhichallmanneroflifeandsustenancesprang,found themselvesvictimizedbytheever-growingogre,TheIronHorse.”39 Whattheforeworddoesnotstateisthattheseunscrupulousindustrialistsandtheiragentsarenortherners,andthevictimizedfarmers,like theJamesfamily,areformerConfederates.SohastheCivilWarreally ended?Isn’tJesseandFrank’sdecisiontorobtheirfirsttrainadirectresultofanongoingguerrillawarbetweenindustrialismandagrarianism? Aren’t they self-styled Confederates, violently pushing the past and the Lost Cause of southern independence into Missouri’s troubled future? ThisiswhatJesseJamesJr.’sbiographyofhisfatherandthemythofJesse Jamesstated.40ButasbiographerT.J.Stilesrecentlypointedout,itwasa self-consciousidentityconstructioncreatednotonlybyJames’sfrequent letterstolocalnewspapersbutalsobyeditorialswrittenbyhisfriendand fellowConfederateveteranJohnNewmanEdwards.41Historiansdidnot createtheJamesmystique.Claimsofhistoricalobjectivityorasearchto findthe“real”JesseJamesarethereforelostcauses,becausesomuchof hislifewasapublicperformanceofConfederatevalues.Eyewitnessesto
TheReturnofOurEpicAmerica 129
hisfirstrobberiesevenattestedthatheandhismenworeKuKluxKlan masks.42ThepersistenceoftheJameslegenddependedoncreatingand retainingaunifiedsouthernidentity;onlythencouldJames’srobberies andmurdersbejustifiedandadmiredaspatrioticacts. Surprisingly, Johnson and Zanuck excised the James brothers’ selfconscious presentation of their work as a continuation of Confederate resistance. The filmmakers suppressed Missouri’s endurance of martial law,therelocationofsouthernfamilies,theenforcedoathofallegiance thatbarredConfederatesympathizersfromvoting,aswellasthebarbarouscrimescommittedagainstUnionistsbytheJamesbrothersandtheir bushwhackingassociatesduringReconstruction.Instead,Johnsonstarted JesseJames’scareerafterrailroadagentshadkilledhismotherfornotsellingherfarm.ItwasnotthefirsttimethatReconstructionwouldbewrittenoutofHollywood’shistoryofnineteenth-centuryAmerica,norwould it be the last. Only the vestiges of the James family’s doomed agrarian resistancesurvivedthefilmmakers’historicaltransformationofAmerica fromanationatwartoanationbentonexpansion. Zanuck and Johnson bolstered their critique of postwar industrializationwithtextforewords,dates,anddetailslinkingthecareersofthe Jamesbrotherstotheruthlesspathoftherailroad.Thetitlesnote“April 8,1872,”asthedaytheworkersdroveinthelastspikeoftheSt.Louis MidlandRailroad,andtheimagesandtextthenchronicletheriseofthe James’scareers.ThesehistoricaltrappingsgaveJesseandFrankJamesa historicalprestigebestowedonotherfamousAmericans,andZanuckand Johnsonzealouslyreliedonassumptionsofhistoricalaccuracyandthe participationofJames’sgranddaughterJoasatechnicaladvisertosupport thefilm.Criticsreactedwithamusementtothestudio’s“apocryphal”and “purified”JesseJames,andNugentwistfullynotedthat“moviesfrequentlywouldbebetteriftheydidn’ttrytodrawalesson.”Besidescriticizing the film’s refusal to portray “Jesse James as he was, or even as we had thoughthimtobe,”Nugentscoffedatthefilmmakers’portrayalofJames asananti-industrialist.“Asamemberofthecapitalistpress,”hesniggered, “wemustcondemnthisobstructionistpolicy.Asavicariousmemberof the James gang, as every former reader of the nickel thrillers must be, weratherresentthismoralisticlesson.”ButNugentoverlookedtheway JameshadmanipulatedthemediaandbeenreinventedbytheMissouri press,dimenovelists,biographers,andhistorians.Itwasfaciletohopefor apictureofJames“ashewas.”AsTime’sfilmcriticpointedout,thedime novelJesseJames,theOutlawanditssequelsportrayedJesseas“amorally delinquent crook.”43 In their historical film, Zanuck and Johnson were
130 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
attemptingtoplacetwooutlaws’criminalexploitswithinamorecomplex historicalframework. But Johnson and Zanuck also surpassed any simple historian’s approachtofindthe“truth”aboutJesseJames.Johnsonincludedaversion ofJohnNewmanEdwards(playedbythefieryHenryHull),whoeditorializedJames’scareeranddirectedpublicunderstandingofhisacts.After James’smurder,theeditorfittinglygivesaeulogyanddispersesJames’s individualcriminalitywithinthemoresinisterforcesofgovernmentand industry.ZanuckconnectedtheoutlawtoacrucialperiodinAmerican history:“Hisdeathmarkedtheendofanerawheresuch-and-suchhappened.”Zanuckcontinued,“Hedidmanythingswrongbuthewasnot entirelytoblame—laws—railroads—andallthat—sowehaveafeeling thattherewasapointtothewholething.”44Abiographyofagunfighter, howeverlegendary,hadtohavehistoricalovertonesasnarrativesupport. Johnsonconcurred,buthealsoportrayedJames’smythmakingasanongoingprocessbythepress.Nugentmayhavehadtongueincheekwhen hesputteredaboutcapitalistresentmentofJohnson’shistoricalpremise, butthefilmisstillremarkableforitspresentationofadeviousestablishmentanditsacknowledgmentofAmerica’sdesireforaberrantheroes. JesseJameswasnotaclassicwesterninthesilenttraditionasFrank Nugent understood it. As a Twentieth Century–Fox film, it retained a deliberate textual component and overarching historical argument that linkedittothecoreofsound-eraprestigepictures.Althoughsomeprominentcriticsobjectedtoitshistoricalpeccadilloes,bysidingwiththeJames brothers,Zanuck’sfilmstoodagainstestablishmenthistory,government control,andnationalpursuitofexpansion.Varietyquotedthefilm’sforewordashistoricaljustification,andMotionPictureHeraldreviewedthe filmas“TwentiethCentury–Fox’sBiographyofanOutlaw,”linkingthe newfilmtoaudiences’morerecentmemoriesofgangsterAlCapone.45 The film’s declared and structured discourse was historical, not a hazy westernmyth.Forallitsdeviationsfromstrictaccuracy,JesseJamesbelongedtoahistoricaltraditionestablishedinthesoundera. Otherfilmsreleasedintheensuingmonthswouldclaiminprojected andprintedtextthattheydealtwithissuesinwesternhistory,buttheir historical approach no longer sided with the rebels against the oppressivewillofnationalexpansion.Instead,themajorityofhistoricalwesterns shownduringandafter1939justifiedthegloryofAmerica’sprogressive history. But for a while, in the midst of a surge in American historical films,JesseJamesprovedthatfilmmakerswerenotalwaysonthesideof government-backedindustry.
TheReturnofOurEpicAmerica 131
ConvertingtheCriticsofExpansion? Laterintheyear,CecilB.DeMille’sUnionPacificwasreleasedasthe antidotetoZanuck’scritiqueofindustrialization.DeMillehadbegun working on another historical western after the success of The Plainsman in 1937 and Lloyd’s ambitious Wells Fargo, but he had no particular historical event, person, or neglected historical topic in mind. Instead,hebeganwithanideaofnationalexpansionandcompletion. OverlunchonedayinFebruary,heandJeannieMacphersonworked itout:“UnionPacificisgoingtobindtogethertwosidesofthecontinent—Senatorsscreaming‘wedon’twanttheWest.Itcan’tbedone.It’s amadman’sdream.’—Dreamsofafewmenwhobelieveditcouldbe done.—PresidentLincolnbelievedthatitmustgothrough—withoutit theWestwouldfallintoforeignhands.—Thedrivetodothesuperhumantask.”46MacphersoncouldnothavebeensurprisedwhenDeMille decided on the railroad as his heroic protagonist and the Indians and train-robbingoutlawsashisvillains. JesseLasky,oneofDeMille’sscreenwritersfortheproject,skimmed through the popular history collected from neighboring libraries and choseErnestHaycox’ssemihistoricalnovelTroubleshooterashissource. LaskywasfranklycontemptuousofHaycox’sstorybutbelievedthat,with the appropriate historical groundwork, the fictional characters might work. He also looked at Trottman’s History of the Union Pacific before decidingontheHaycoxwork.HewrotetoDeMillethattheworthwhile elementofthebook“islostinthestupidflamboyantstyleofitswriting. There are the seeds of a good style underneath a bad ‘western’ literary style.”47AfterthescriptwascompletedinSeptember,producerWilliam LeBaronreaditandstressedtheneedforDeMilletoincludeatrulyimpressiveforewordemphasizingthenationalimportoftheUnionPacific. HesuggestedhavingAbrahamLincolnsay,“Thisisnotjustimportantto theMiddleWestandthecoast—butisimportanttotheworld.”Although DeMilleaddedLincolntothevisualprologue,hewasuncertainabout theforeword.Perhapsthinkingthatanationalhistoricalconnectionwas toosmallforhim,hetoyedwithcomparingtheUnionPacificwiththe PyramidsandtheGreatWallofChina.Luckily,oneassistantproducer thoughtthatthistypeofforewordwouldbeabittooesoteric.48DeMille mayhavetriedtoeasehishistoricaldiscomfortbyconstructingatextforewordthatidentifiedUnionPacificas“alegend.”ButasPamelaFalkenberg pointed out, even DeMille’s fabrications cannot be taken lightly. “Thistitle,”shewrote,
132 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
also ascribes to the depiction a particular status: what we are about to see is neither historical nor factual (that is, not a true representation), but a legend. A legend is both “an unverified popularstoryhandeddownfromearliertimes”and“aromanticizedorpopularizedmythofmoderntimes.”Thereisacertain ambiguityhere.TotheextentthatUnionPacificisthelegend,it isamythofmoderntimesthatromanticizestheUnionPacificof thepast....TotheextentthatUnionPacificsimplyquotesthe legendoftheUnionPacific,ithandsdownafictionalpastfrom earliertimes.49 DeMille’slegendsmaybeself-conscioustranscriptionsofhistorians’own romanticviewsofnineteenth-centuryexpansionandcapitalistenterprise. AndasFalkenbergreasoned,theopeningcreditsarearrangedtorecede intothedistance,becomingmorehistoricallyillegibleastimeprogresses. ItwasanapproachDeMillehadpioneeredwithThePlainsmanin1936. Althoughthetitlesdeliberatelyinscribethisuncertainty,thissensethatall historyisbasedonrecycledlegendsandelusivetext,accordingtoFalkenberg,DeMille’snarrativealsoexposescapitalism’sandAmericanhistory’s owncontradictions.WhentheevilcapitalistBarrowsturnsaroundand fundstherailroadthatheonceplannedtodestroy,capitalismismomentarilysubverted,butnotforlong.TheUnionPacificiscompleted;thus, “capitalismnegatesitselfinordertomaintainitself.”50 Yet no contemporary film critic was willing to credit DeMille with
Openingcredits ofThePlainsman illustratethetheme oftherecessionof history.
TheReturnofOurEpicAmerica 133
anunconsciousdiscourseoncorporatecapitalismoranyself-conscious historicalsubtlety.Nugentwascutting:“ForMr.DeMillesparesnothing, horsesoractors,whenheturnshishandtowesternhistory.”Thenarrativewasan“encyclopediaoffrontieradventure.”Hollywoodtradepapers calledit“asignificantadditiontotherosterofhistoricalmelodramas”but neglectedtospecifywhatitadded,saveepicsizeandover$1.4millionof productionscosts.51Historicalfilmmakinginthelate1930shadbecome anoverarchingbusinessthatbecamemoreandmoreadeptatmaskingits historicalqualitiesandsubversivetext. DeMillestillbelievedinstressingtheimportanceofAmericanhistory—when it served his cinematic purpose. When critics complained ofhistoricalinaccuraciesinThePlainsman,hehadquotedhisforeword asadisclaimer.WhenReverendShiuhushuoftheIndianAssociationof AmericacondemnedUnionPacific’s“rotten”portrayalofNativeAmericansasa“savagerace,”DeMillecountered,“Weweremakingpictures basedonhistoricalfacts,”withoutspecifyingwhosefactshereliedon.52 Heclaimedutterobjectivityinhisfilms,yetFrankCalvin,anephewof theheadoftheUnionPacificRailroad,headedUnionPacific’sresearch department.Surelytherewasaconflictofinterest.SpeakingwithBosley CrowtheroftheNewYorkTimesinMay1939,DeMilledefendedhishistoricalvision:“Historyshouldbehonestlyanddiligentlyrespected.But, also I’d maintain that its teaching should be done more naturally, too. Historyisnotjustamatterofnamesanddates—dryfactsstrungtogether.Itisanendless,dramaticstory,asaliveasthenewsinthemorning’s paper.”53Unfortunately,DeMille’smainfactswerehisconstantfaithin heroicnationalexpansion,thepurityofthewhiterace,thesacrednessof industry,andhisstockofcinematicimagesandsequencesthathecould recycleatwill.Thesewerenotfactsbutattitudesandlegends,which,as Falkenbergargued,perverselyturnedonthemselvesforsustenance.Like theopeningcreditsofDeMille’sfilm,historyitselfseemedtodisappear, leavingonlyitsmainargumentformedbythethrustoftheUnionPacific’s tracks.SpurredonbyDeMille’sexample,Hollywoodfilmmakerspursued the“superwestern”54butleftthewreckageofhistoricalexperimentation intheirwake.
WarnerBrothersandtheWinningoftheWest AlthoughWarnerBrothershadbeenreleasingAmericanhistoricalproductionsduringDarrylZanuck’sera,itwasonlyin1936thatthestudio createdtheWarnerResearchLibraryandappointedDr.HermanLissauer
134 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
toheadit.55WarnerBrotherswaspreparingtocompetewithZanuck,and thoughitwouldsoonpossessoneofthemostimpressiveresearchlibraries inCalifornia,itstilllackedthehistoricalscreenwriterswithwhomZanuck workedsoclosely.By1938,RobertBuckneremergedasWarnerBrothers’ most prominent writer of American historical films. His first collaborationonsuchascriptforWarnerBrotherswastheratherstodgyGoldIs WhereYouFindIt(1938),ahistoryoftheclashbetweenCalifornia’s emerginghydraulicpowerindustryandtheagricultural economy. A fewmonthsafterthereleaseofGoldIsWhereYouFindIt,thestudio library collected Thornton Delehanty’s article “Westerns—The Last WordinSafety.”56Thenotedcriticsaidthatwesternswerecheapand satisfyingtothenationandpredictedthat1939wouldbedominated by Americana. The studio had already made its own prediction several monthsbefore. UnderthesupervisionofHalWallis,WarnerBrotherstookasfewfinancialrisksaspossibleanddecidedonaremakeofasuccessfulhistorical period—theopeningofOklahoma’sCherokeeStripin1893.Theevent had figured prominently in Cimarron, and even eight years after its release,thefilmstillpossessedanaurainHollywood.Itsscaleandexpense haddeterredremakes,butby1939,withtheoveralleconomicsituation inHollywoodimprovingandwithadifferentscript,WarnerBrothersdecidedtomakeTheOklahomaKid.Theresearchersevendugacopyof Ferber’sCimarronoutofthestudio’slibraryandstudiedit.57Originally, writersWallyKlein,EdwardE.Paramore,andWarrenDuffopenedThe OklahomaKidwithahighlycriticalhistoricalprologuebeginningwith ashotoftheIndianTerritoryandthetitlequotingthegovernmenttreaty,“Theirsaslongasthegrassgrowsandthewaterflows.”58Theythen planned a quick dissolve to the White House in 1893, when President Cleveland broke the treaty. Buckner cut this potentially embarrassing prologueandplannedtoopenwithavoice-overextolling“thefiveanda halfmillionacresofvirginland.”DuffagreedtoreplacetheoriginalcriticaltreatmentwithBuckner’spositivespinontheimperialproclamation anddecidedtocombinetheendorsementofthenewlandrushwiththe originalshotoftheWhiteHouse.59ThewritersstudiedCimarron,both thebookandthefilm,andalthoughthetimespanandprologueweresignificantlydiminished,theystillmaintainedaprotagonist,theOklahoma Kid,whopubliclysneeredat“empirebuilding”andrememberedthatthe landhadpriorowners—theCherokees. However,unlikeYanceyCravat,theOklahomaKid(JamesCagney) isneitherofmixedbloodnorajournalist-historian.TheKidisjustonthe
TheReturnofOurEpicAmerica 135
wrong side of the law. Although he initially criticizes the government’s expansionistpoliciesbeforeandduringthelandrush,hisantiexpansion rhetoricdisappearsasthenarrativeprogresses.Thefilmmakerswereevidentlyworriedaboutanyantiestablishmentcomments,andinthefinal stagesoffilmproduction,theybegantoaddanumberoftemporizingtext insertstothefirsthalfofthefilm.Theirimpressiveintertitlesrenderthe Kid’s individual critique of the government even more marginal: “Out ofthewildernesssproutsanempire.Pioneers,theireyesfixedonthefuture, build a town—one day to be a city . . . Tulsa.”60 In constructing Cimarron’shistoryofOklahoma,Estabrookhadincorporatedacounterpointofoverblownrhetoricwithmultiethnic,multiracial,feminist,and antifrontierimages;incontrast,BucknerandWarnerBrothers’teamof writersusedtextasameansofrestrainingaberrantfilmimages.Afterthe landrush,thesehistoricalstructuresvanish,andtheKid’sconflictwith crookedsaloon-keeperWhipMcCord(HumphreyBogart)dominatesthe narrative.Infightingthemenwhokilledhisfather,theKidbecomesa goodAmericancitizenagain,onewhosupportslawandorderandexpansion.ScreenwriterNormanReillyRaineexplainedthenewgoalofthe script:“WhateverhedoesagainsttheMcCordcrowdwouldbeliftedout ofthestatusofthepersonalandwouldbecometheactofapatriot...and wouldprovidealegitimatereasonforstressinglargenessofvisioninthe settlingofthecountryandtheonwardmarchofcivilization.”61Zanuck had suggested something similar when expanding the historical significanceofJesseJames,butRaine,Buckner,andWallisdidnotsharehis valorizationofcriticsofAmericanempire.TheOklahomaKid’sopening criticismofthegovernment’streatmentofIndiansandhisowncontempt forthegovernmentandexpansionaretransformedinthecourseofthe narrative.Curiously,astracesofhistoryandtextdisappearfromthefilm and the scenes develop exclusively along the personal story, Cagney’s characterbecomesafigureforlawandorder.Heabsorbsthediscourse oftheprojectedtext.BucknerhadoriginallyplannedtosolidifytheKid’s nationaldevotioninafinalspeechthatpraisedthesettlingoftheWest andclaimedthatithadbeenhisfather’sdream,andwasnowhisown, andwouldbelongtofuturegenerations.62Butthiswastoomuchforthe studio.Thefilmendedonakiss. ReleasedinMarch,TheOklahomaKidwasamildpopularsuccess. Thecriticsthoughtotherwise.Nugentwrote,“Mr.Cagneydoesn’turge youtobelievehimforasecond;he’sjustenjoyinghimself.”Afterstarting off the year and a new western cycle with Jesse James and Stagecoach, Varietywasappalledbythis“small-timewestern”masqueradingasaCi-
136 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
marron, and it blamed the clichés on the writers.63 Howard Barnes of theNewYorkHeraldTribunealsoattackedthescript.Criticsofhistorical filmsusuallyfocusedontheaccuracyofthenarrative,butBarnestook thefilmmakerstotaskfortheirpretensionsinaddingprestigioustouches andintertitlestoawestern.“Thedirectionfalterstothepointofhavingto substitutesubtitlesatpointswhereabitofsignificantactionordialogue might have knit the continuity together. . . . If you care to pigeonhole thephotoplay,callitthelatestexampleoftheglorifiedwesterns,which arerapidlyassumingtheproportionsofamajorscreencycle.”64Fornine years,theuseofprojectedtextinfilmhadbeenthemostrecognizable iconographyofthehistoricalfilm.Criticsunfamiliarwiththeperiodor withthenuancesofhistoriographyusedtoquoteorparaphrasethefilmmakers’forewords.Oftentheybecamethekeynotesforacritic’sreview. Butin1939,BarnesreactedtotextinTheOklahomaKidasthoughhe hadnoticeditforthefirsttime:texthadbecomesoobviousanddisjunctivethatthevisualnarrativefellapart. Inspiteofthefilm’smediocrereviews,WarnerBrothersseemeddetermined to control the production of historical westerns. After a huge premiereandfancynationalpromotions,itreleaseditsnextinstallment, DodgeCity,inApril1939.65Prestige,historicaltrappings,andthemakingof“glorified”westernsallseemedtobethesurestmethodtorescuea hideboundHollywoodgenrefromitsownrepetitiveanonymityandmediocreprofits.Butcriticsrecognizedthat,unlikeCimarron,these“splashy” filmsincreasinglyexploredhistoryandconflictasameansofconcealing mediocrescripts.WarnerBrothers,Paramount,andMGM,intheirmad dashtosurpassRKOandoutdoZanuck,hadasurfeitofmajoractorsand adearthofscripts.SinceBucknerworkedonallofWarnerBrothers’efforts,timeconstraintsforcedhimtorepeatimpressivehistoricalformulas. AtWarnerBrothers,scriptsbecamefilmsatabreathlesspace,anditwas tempting to repeat narrative formulas from James Cagney’s last feature to support Errol Flynn’s latest adventure. Historical intertitles and detailscouldpatchonlysomuch;Barnes’scriticismmayhavehititsmark. Dodge City’s antecedents were undistinguished, and Buckner realized it, so his solution was to add some historical filler. Aeneas MacKenzie haddonesomepreliminaryresearchonWyattEarpandDocHollidayin early1938.66ThestudiohadwantedtomakeanotherpictureaboutEarp inTombstone,butTwentiethCentury–FoxownedtherightstoFrontier MarshalandtheonlymajorbiographyofEarpbyStuartLake.Itdidnot wanttoriskalawsuitfromtheirascibleLakeorthepugnaciousZanuck. But,asWalterMacEwanwrote,thestudiocouldalwaysdoafilmabout
TheReturnofOurEpicAmerica 137
Earp’sexperiencesinDodgeCity,Kansas,andfictionalizeeverythingby making“aswellbigwestern.”67 Jack Warner was intrigued by this inexpensive suggestion and sent MacKenzie to the research library to read popular history, hoping that thisprecautionwouldsavethemfromthepitfallsofplagiarism.Buckner had an even simpler solution: make it up and treat it like history. He knewnothingaboutEarp’slifeandevenaskedtheresearchdepartment iftherewassuchaplaceasTombstone,Arizona.Hewrote,“Reducedto itsactualelements,DodgeCitywasadynamic,wide-opencattletown— that and only that. Any other reasons for its colorful existence would beanabsolutefalsificationofhistoricalfacts.Theresultisa‘western’ picture, if a label must be applied; but a formula which we have attempted to improve and distinguish within the natural limitations of thematerial.”68Theold“western”formulalackedprestigeatthattime, asBuckner’salmostembarrassedhesitationindicated;duringtheheyday ofthesound-erahistoricalwestern,criticspreferredtodressupwesterns withtermssuchas“historicalmelodrama,”“history,”“semibiographical,” and“periodadventure.” Buckner attempted to cover the genre’s plebian past with the gloss oftheCivilWar.Itwasasolutionheandthestudiowouldreturntoin VirginiaCity(1940),TheSantaFeTrail(1940),andTheyDiedwithTheir BootsOn(1941).BothhisfirstdraftandfinalscriptofDodgeCitybegin withtextsuperimpositionsandprologuesopeningduringtheCivilWar.69 Wade,thefictionalprotagonist(thoughmodeledonEarp),isactuallya southernofficeratGettysburg.Bucknereventuallyrestrainedhisenthusiasmforhistory,however,andhadthescriptbeginafterthewar,when“the soldiersofbotharmiesputasidetheirgunsandconsecratethemselvesto the rebuilding of a great nation.” The railroad becomes the new plow. Wade’s southern origins are barely noticeable, and although tensions withYankeesaloon-keeperSuretteflare,Wade’srealpreoccupationisthe rebuilding of the nation out west. He has none of the Oklahoma Kid’s scruplesbutisafull-blowncattlemanandsheriff. EvenmorethanDodgeCity,VirginiaCityprotecteditswesternnarrativewiththeimpressiverhetoricofAbrahamLincolnandepicbattles oftheCivilWar.70BucknerandWallisalsoenlistedtheresourcesofthe research department to bolster the narratives, but by 1940, critics were notimpressed.BarnesandNugentbothdismissedthestoriesas“conventionalhorseoperas”tryingtobe“glorifiedwesterns”butprojectingonly “well-worn”and“hackneyedviewsoftheWest.”71Behindcloseddoors, thefilmmakersopenlyacknowledgedthatthesehistoricalgestureswere
138 ResolvingWestwardExpansion
meaningless.Actorswerechangingtheirownlines,andWallispredicted thatwhen“everyonebecomesawriter,”thescriptwouldfail.72 Inamajorbreakwiththestructureofhistoricalfilmmaking,Darryl Zanuck’s production of The Return of Frank James (1940) used actual footagefromJesseJames,andtheoriginalfilmfunctionedlikethetraditionaltextforeword.Filmhistorybecamethestructuralequalofhistoriography.ProducerJulianJohnsonwasthrilledwiththeidea,andZanuck, withsomemisgivings,agreed.73Withtheexceptionofserialsandtheuse ofdocumentaryfootage,itwasoneofthefirsttimesthatamajorAfeature usedoldfictionfilmfootageashistoricalevidence.InVeraDika’sanalysis ofthepostmodern“nostalgia”filmofthe1970sand1980s,shedefines thepostmodernimpulseasapotentiallycriticalviewofthepastlodged inthedisjunctivereturnofpastimages.74AlthoughDikalimitstheseselfreflexivemomentstopostclassicalHollywood,Zanuck’sreuseofhisold footage points to a self-conscious use of film as a historical document andtothesymbolicdecayofthehistoricalgenre.Remakesofhistorical films such as The Oklahoma Kid, Fox’s Frontier Marshal (1933, 1939), Universal’s Destry Rides Again (1932, 1939), and MGM’s Billy the Kid (1930,1941)testifiedtothestudios’occasionalexperimentationwithhistoricalstructuresandiconography,butcriticssawonlyrepetition.Even theHollywoodReportercomplained,“Itdoesn’tseemtomatterwhatyou dotoawestern;itstillcomesoutasawestern,andwhetheryouspend $50,000or$500,000orevenmoretomakeone,theyallseemtowindup withaboutthesamestorythathasthesameentertainmentvalues.”75By 1939,asthesestrugglesbetweenhistoricalinnovationandmass-produced spectaclesresultedinmoreandmorewesternformulas,thememoryof Hollywood’spioneeringsound-erawesternsfadedintothedistance.
Part Three
Civil War and Reconstruction
This page intentionally left blank
5
JezebelsandRebels, CavaliersandCompromise, 1930–1939 Doyouknow,you’retheonlyreviewerwhohaspickedupthediaries andmemoirsoutofmybackground?Ofcourse,Iusedeverybodyfrom MyrtaLockettAvarytoElizaAndrewsandMaryGayandMrs.Clement ClayandMissFearnandElizaRipleyandtheLordknowshowmany unpublishedlettersanddiaries.AndI’mglad,withyourSouthern background,thatyounoticedandmaintainedthatTarawasn’tamovieset butaworkingplantation. —MargaretMitchelltoStephenV.Benét,1936
WhenMacmillanpublishedMargaretMitchell’sGonewiththeWindin June1936,reviewerscomparedtheauthortoTolstoy,Hardy,andThackeray.1Mitchell,usuallythesoulofcourtesy,repliedalittlestarchilythat althoughhermotherusedtopayhertoreadseriousliteratureasagirl, eventhelureofaquarterhadnevertemptedhertopickupWarandPeace orVanityFair.Infact,shereadThackerayonlyafterherownnovelwas completedandanautomobileaccidentleftherwithsomesparetime.In hisreviewfortheNewYorkEveningPost,HershelBrickellfeltthatGone with the Wind’s closest antecedents were not literary but historical. He concluded,“Icanonlycompareitforitsdefinitiveness,itstruthfulness anditscompletenesswithDouglasSouthallFreeman’sR.E.Lee,andI knowofnohigherpraisethatcanreasonablybebestoweduponitthan 141
142 CivilWarandReconstruction
this.”2 This was the type of review that Mitchell enjoyed, and Brickell wouldsoonbecomeherclosefriend.HehadrecognizedanaffinitybetweenMitchell’sandFreeman’sworkthatwentdeeperthantheirshared southernheritageandbackgroundsinjournalism.Freeman’s1934biographyofRobertE.Leewasimmenselypopularwithbothacademiaand thepublic,andby1939,hewascertainlyAmerica’smostrespectedpopularsouthernhistorian.3Mitchell’sGonewiththeWindremainsthemost widelyreadAmericannovel.Andyet,ashercorrespondencereveals,she waslessinterestedincommentsaboutherliterarystyleandimpactthan inanappreciationofherhistoricalacumen. FreemanalsorecognizedahistoricalkinshipwithMitchellandstruck upacorrespondencewithhersoonafterthepublicationofherbook.A fewyearslaterhebeganTheSouthtoPosterity,asurveyofsouthernhistoriography,withabriefreferencetoGonewiththeWind’sinfluenceonthe growingpublicinterestinsouthernhistory.4YetFreemanwascarefulto separateMitchell’spopularnovelfromtherealmof“legitimate”history, wherehisworkbelonged.Inhischapter“YettoBeWritten,”Freeman focused on Confederate women. He wrote, “Least of all has the part playedbysouthernwomenintheWarbeenpresented....Thosewho did most to maintain the morale of the South during the war, and to preservespiritualidealsafterthehostilities,arethoseofwhomleastis knownandleastwritten.”5HealsocomplainedthattheonlygoodbiographyofaConfederatewomanwasthatofVarinaHowellDavis,the FirstLadyoftheConfederacy.Freemanignoredthehugebibliography ofpublisheddiariesandautobiographiesofsouthernwomen,6thereby denying women the right to compose their own history—a privilege hegavetoConfederategenerals,statesmen,andadvisersinanearlier chapter.Mitchell’snovel,anavowednarrativeofmanyofthesewomen’sexperiences,pointedlyhadnoplaceinFreeman’sstudyofsouthern history. In fact, it appears that Freeman attempted to damn Mitchell withfaintpraise;hepolitelymentionedMitchell’ssuccessinpublicizingsouthernhistorybutthendrewattentiontoitsproperarena,masculinepublichistoryandmemoir.Hewrote,“Withthefullestadmiration forMissMitchell...andothercontemporarywritersontheConfederacy, IhavetoconfessthatIamnotsureIunderstandallthereasonsforthe steady increase in the number of those who read deeply of the South’s four-yearstruggle.”7 Almostfromthemomentofitspublication,GonewiththeWindbeganavoluble,contradictory,andoftenacrimoniousdebateaboutitshistoricalcontentandvoice.Themostenduringwailofdisgustcamefrom
JezebelsandRebels,CavaliersandCompromise 143
MalcolmCowleyintheNewRepublic,whobeganwiththeimpressive pronouncement,“‘GonewiththeWind’isanencyclopediaoftheplantation legend,” initiating a prevailing academic aversion to the work’s glorificationofwhite-columnedplantations,cottonandmagnolias,whitehaired“gentlemen”drinkingmintjuleps,andblack“retainers”withappallingaccents.8Morerecentculturalstudiesofthehistoricalnovelhave partiallyrevisedCowley’scriticisms,acknowledgingthatMitchell’sconstruction of the maverick belle, Scarlett O’Hara, subverts much of the plantationmythology.9Butdespiteinterestinrecoveringamorenuanced understandingofthenovel’stempestuousheroine,scholarshavepersisted inviewingGonewiththeWind’shistoricalbackgroundasmyth,animaginativeifsomewhatconflictedretellingofAmericanhistoryreflectingthe twentiethcentury’slongingforasafeVictorianpast.10 Historical examinations of Mitchell’s work have been confined to minutedisputationsonitshistoricalpoints,whichultimatelyclaimthat Mitchell merely fabricated a romantic myth of the Civil War and ReconstructionerasidealforclassicalHollywoodcinema.ScholarsGerald Wood,KennethO’Brien,andRichardKingallclaimedthatinthis“woman’snarrative”(abookbyandaboutwomen)historyisirrelevant,while historians Elizabeth Young and Catherine Clinton have concentrated onGonewiththeWindasacomplexreinscriptionofracism,dismissing Mitchell’shistoricalclaimsasawayof“whitewashing”thenovel’sproblematicracialstereotyping.11TaraMcPherson’smostrecentcultural“reconstruction”ofMitchell’swork,thoughacknowledgingScarlett’ssexual aberrations,concludesthattheheroine’ssubversion“ispossiblebecause itissituatedwithinascenariothatromanticizestheOldSouth,revampingplantationmythologies.”12InBloodandIrony,SarahGardnerfocuses onsouthernwomen’snarrativesoftheCivilWarfrom1861to1937,but her interpretation of Gone with the Wind emphasizes its “simple” and “nostalgic”historicalperspective.13 AlthoughMitchellhasbeenconsistentlyexcludedfromthepatriarchalrealmofhistoricalwriting,chargedwithreplicatingaracistmythof theLostCause,thefollowingpagesreconstructherroleasaninnovative, influential popular historian responsible for engaging questions of genderedhistoricalinterpretationandracialhybridity.Historianshavebeen equally dismissive of classical Hollywood’s interpretations of American history,butevenDavidO.Selznick’s1939adaptationofGonewiththe WindconfrontsMitchell’scomplexmixtureofraceandgenderand,as Iargue,projectsthepossibilityofabiracialhistoryofthereconstructed southernwoman.
144 CivilWarandReconstruction
MargaretMitchell’sRevisionistSouthernHistory MitchellandherfriendsenjoyedreadingthespateofGonewiththeWind reviewsinthesummerof1936,butCowley’sgeneratedbyfarthemost mirth.Hadheevenreadthebook,theywondered?HiswaspishindictmentofthemythofsouthernlifeinAmericanculturemayhavehadits validity,butnotwhenleveledatGonewiththeWind.Thenovelwasan obviousassaultonthemythofmoonlight,magnolias,andpassive,pretty womenfromtheopeningdescriptionofitswillfulandrebelliousheroine.ScarlettO’Harawasunconventional,tosaytheleast,preferringthe companyoftheblackchildrenontheplantationstoheraristocraticgirlishcontemporaries.14TheO’HaraswerenotAnglo-Saxongentlefolkbut poorIrishimmigrants;Tarahadnowhitecolumnsbutwasarambling, unplanned,andundignifiedhomestead.Laterinherlife,Scarlettwould beboredandthendisillusionedbythesoutherncause,viewingitnotas“a holyaffair,butanuisancethatkilledmensenselesslyandcostmoneyand madeluxurieshardtoget.”15AllfourofMitchell’sprotagonists—Scarlett, Melanie Hamilton Wilkes, Ashley Wilkes, and Rhett Butler—criticize the fire-eating politicians for starting the war, and her narrative confrontedthewidespreadConfederatedisunion,divisivenessinthecabinet, and mounting army desertion.16 Drew Gilpin Faust’s Mother of Inventions:WomenoftheSlaveholdingSouthintheAmericanCivilWar(1996) chronicledwomen’sgradualantagonismtowardthewareffortanditseffectonConfederatedefeat.ButitwasMitchellwhofirstintimatedthat women(andsoldiers)didnotwholeheartedlysupportthewar.Although, asSarahGardnerhaspointedout,manyofScarlett’scontemporariesare loyaltothecause,MitchellgivesreadersaccessonlytoScarlett’sresentment,privilegingitaboveothers’blinddevotion.17 FellowsouthernerandNewRepublicwriterStarkYoung,whosemore romantic Civil War novel, So Red the Rose, was filmed by Paramount in1935,toldMitchellthatinselectingtheruggedbackgroundofnorth Georgia for her novel, she contradicted much of the genteel Virginia– Greek Revival nonsense written about the South. He wrote, “a part of thefreshnessofyourchoicelayinyourchoosingthatupstateregion,far lesselaboratedthantheplaceslikeCharleston,Savannah,Natchez,etc.” MitchellagreedbutwrotetoYoung,“Iwishsomeofthem[thecritics] wouldactuallyreadthebookandreviewthebookIwrote—notthebook theyimagineI’vewrittenorthebooktheythinkIshouldhavewritten.”18 Historian Henry Steele Commager understood Mitchell’s passion for historical re-creation over novelistic imagination. Appreciating the
JezebelsandRebels,CavaliersandCompromise 145
dramatic authenticity of her setting and characters, Commager wrote thatherstorywas“wovenofthestuffofhistory,”andherchoiceofmid- nineteenth-centurymelodramaticformgaveGonewiththeWindthestatusofatrue“dramaticrecreationoflifeitself.”19Inbothsubjectmatter andstyle,Mitchellre-createdherhistoricalera.YetCommagerfellshort ofthenextanalyticalstep—ofdescribingGonewiththeWindasawork of historiography. However brilliantly the novel may have reflected its historicalera,CommagerdidnotcreditMitchellwithdevelopinganew historicalperspectiveonthewar.Herworkborenocomparisontohishistoricalworld,andasscholarDardenAsburyPyronlaterpointedout,male reviewersoftenconflatedhernovel’scomplexand“ambiguous”historical positionwithheridentityasawomanwriter.20Becauseherperspective ontheCivilWarandReconstructionerasdidnotconformtoWhiggish historiography,equatinghistory(andthedefeatoftheSouth)toprogress, herbooklacked“direction.” Mitchell’sworrythatcriticswouldignoreherdarkersouthernviewof thewarandReconstruction,replacingitwiththeirownsimplisticviewof howhistoryshouldbewritten,wassadlyjustified.Manydisparagedher lackof“literarystyle”andhermelodramaticcharactersandplot,notrealizing,asCommagerdid,thattheelementsofperiodmelodramawereintendedtosupportthehistoricalaccuracyofaGeorgiawoman’slifefrom 1861to1873.Inherletters,Mitchellalsodefendedherstyleonhistorical grounds,statingthatinorderforhertotranscribehistoricaleventsand meldthemwiththethoughtsofhercharacters,shehadtoadoptaspare, unpretentious,evendocumentarytone.21Mitchell’sconstructionofher stylisticchoicesservedtwopurposes:ontheonehand,herflareformelodramagaveherfictionalromancenarrativeafeelingofhistoricalaccuracy;ontheotherhand,hercarefulresearchtechniquesweresupported byadocumentarytoneintendedtoconnotetheauthorityofahistorian. Mitchell’sglowingthank-younotestoFreemanandCommagerfor theirpraisewerenotmerelyextensionsofgoodsouthernmanners.She onceadmittedthatshehadinitiallywantedtowriteahistoryofGeorgia duringtheCivilWarandReconstructioneras;however,sheknewthatit wouldneversellorbereadbeyondhercircleoffriends.“IfIhadmyway the whole book would have been about that running fight [Johnston’s retreattowardAtlantain1864],”shewrotetooneofheradmirers,“butI realizethereadingpublicdoesnotcareformilitarycampaignsasmuch asmyfamilydo,soIcutprodigiously...inanefforttokeepitfrombeing tooheavy.”22LikeD.S.Freeman,shehadworkedasanewsreporter,oftencombiningherhistoricalandliteraryinterestsbywritingCivilWarar-
146 CivilWarandReconstruction
ticlesforanAtlantapaper.ButunlikeFreeman,shehadlittlemoneyand nouniversitydegree.Shewasalsoawoman.Theworldsofthepublicand academichistorianwereclosedtoher.Thus,shedidherbesttoplease herself and her potential public by constructing a fictional narrative to supportherhistoricalknowledge.Ironically,itwasthatfictional“women’s”narrativeofthewar,Mitchell’ssubstituteforherbelovedtraditional military history, that captured the public’s imagination and anticipated thetrendinwomen’ssocialhistoriesofthewarerabyhalfacentury. Inherletterstofriends,colleagues,andfans,Mitchellemphasized theamountofhistoricalresearchinvolvedinwritinghernovel,herinterminablebibliography,andherownhistoricalperspectivearticulatedin thebook.23Likeanyprofessionalhistorian,shewentthrougholdnewspapers,campaignrecords,memoirs,governmentdocuments,biographies, andhistories.Sheinterviewedsurvivorsofthesiegeof1864andveterans of Johnston’s and Hood’s armies. She revisited the old battlefields and plantationswhereshehadoncewalkedwithherfather.Andshewrote abouttheperiodnotonlybecauseherbackgroundandpersonalresearch qualifiedhertodosobutalsobecauseshewastiredofreadingandhearingaboutplantationmyths,sentimentalizedhistory,andVirginia’straditionaldominanceinthefieldsofCivilWarandmilitaryhistory.Inaletter toDonaldAdamssheexplained,“ThemoreIdugintothebackhistoryof thetown,themoreIrealizedhowimportantitwasduringthosedays.But forallthat’sknownaboutit,thewarmighthavebeenwagedinVirginia. AndIgotprettysickandtiredofreadingaboutthefightinginVirginia whenforsheerdramathecampaignfrom[the]TennesseelinetoAtlanta hasnoequal.”24 Therewereotheromissionsinthestandardhistoriographythatirritatedher.Mitchellhadagreatloveandrespectforhistory,butlikeJames FenimoreCooper,HelenHuntJackson,andEdnaFerber,shehadanundisguisedcontemptforhistorianswhoallowedcontemporaryeconomic andpoliticaldiscoursestodirecttheretellingofevents.Herexplanation oftheSouth’sdefeatinGonewiththeWindparalleledthatofnotedhistorianJamesG.RandallinCivilWarandReconstruction,emphasizing thelackofacohesivesouthernness,economicunderdevelopment,and divisivepoliticalrhetoric.25Althoughhernovelcontainedasustainedexaminationofthehistoricalforcesthataccountedforthesoutherndefeat, MitchelldislikedhistoriesbythelikesofCharlesandMaryBeard,who viewedtheCivilWar’soutcomeasnomorethanademonstrationofthe triumphofindustrialismoveragrarianism.Shewasappalledwhensome reviewers from Left-leaning periodicals complained that her book had
JezebelsandRebels,CavaliersandCompromise 147
toolittleofthesecontemporaryeconomicandpolitical“isms,”thereby implyingthatsheshouldwriteahistoricalnovelthatcomplementedthe Beards’ Rise of American Civilization (1927). Even Mitchell’s apparent beliefineconomicdeterminismwasnotacontemporarycriticalphilosophygraftedonCivilWarhistorybutahistoricalresponsefromoneofthe manyCivilWardiaristsshecameacrossinherresearch,GeorgianEliza FrancesAndrews.26Mitchellwasadedicatedandmeticuloushistorian, notatendentioussocialcritic.Forher,howevercrucialthehistoricaltheory,thehistorian’srhetoricmustbecontainedbytheactualwarexperienceofwhitesouthernwomen.27 Yet in re-creating what an eyewitness to the war in Georgia would haveseen,shedrewfuriousprotestsfromnorthernreaders.Particularly controversialwastheallegeddesecrationoftheAtlantacemeterybySherman’stroopsinthefallof1864.WhenFrankKennedyandsomeother ConfederatesoldiersarriveunexpectedlyatTaraforChristmas,thefamily asksfornewsofAtlanta.FranktellsthemthatalthoughtheConfederates and later the Yankees burned the town, many of the buildings are still standing,includingAuntPittypat’shouse.Hethenpauses,for“hecould nottellthemwhatthearmysawwhentheymarchedbackintoAtlanta,the acres and acres of chimneys standing blackly above ashes. . . . He hoped thattheladieswouldneverhearofthehorrorsofthelootedcemetery.... Hoping to find jewelry buried with the dead, the Yankee soldiers had brokenopenvaults,dugupgraves.Theyhadrobbedthebodies,stripped fromthecoffinsgoldandsilvernameplates,silvertrimmings,andsilver handles.Theskeletonsandcorpses,flunghelter-skelteramongthesplinteredcaskets,layexposedandpitiful.”28Northernreaderswereaffronted bythispro-southerndistortion,andevenTimemagazineexpresseddoubt aboutthevalidityoftheaccount.Mitchell,furiousthatherhistoricalresearchhadbeenquestioned,wrotebacktoTime,statingthatthemilitary warrecordscontainedextensivepassagesaboutthedesecrationandthat manyrespectedstudiesofthewar,includingAvery’sHistoryofGeorgia, 1850–1881,wroteofit.29FrankKennedy’sreminiscencealmostduplicatedW.P.Howard’sreporttoGovernorJosephBrowninDecember1864 whenConfederatetroopsreenteredtheabandonedcity.30 Mitchellwouldhavemanysimilardisputeswithapublicunusedto suchpersuasivecriticismoftheFederalarmy.SomeattackedMitchell’s chronicleofthedepredationsofSherman’sarmywithoutrealizingthat herfictionalnarrativewasbasedoneyewitnesstestimonyfrombothsides, including,mostinfamously,Shermanandhisaide,HenryHitchcock,who boasted proudly about his army’s feats in “straggling” and “foraging.”31
148 CivilWarandReconstruction
Although Randall’s history, published in 1937, mentions the “shocking amountofdownrightplunderandvandalism,”thehistorianwascareful to avoid reprinting the vivid testimonies of 1864 and skimmed over assaultsonsouthernmenandwomenandthetheftofprivatepropertythat leftmanycountryfolktostarvethatwinter.32Randall,perhapswithan eyetowardhealingdisunion,wroteawell-temperedandfairlyimpersonal nationalsynthesisofeventsfrom1860through1876.Mitchellhadnointerestinmitigatingtheconflictsoftheperiodorineditinghistorytosuita currentmoodofnationalreconciliation.Althoughitwascertainlyinher interestasanovelisttoemphasizetheviolentdramaofthatera,Mitchell’s commitmenttochroniclingGeorgians’warexperiencewasjustasdeep.It wasthispersonalelementinherhistoricalnovelthatangeredsomany. Mitchell’s chronicle of southern women’s struggle in 1864 was a modernwoman’sassessmentofhistoricaloccurrencesrememberedand writtenbywomen.Thewar,asFaustwouldlatercomment,wasanunprecedented period of feminine liberation in the South.33 Women ran theplantations,hoed,planted,pickedcotton,fendedoffstarvation,and watchedtheirhouseslootedandburned.WomenrecordedtheYankees’ pillaging and violence in biographies (LaSalle Corbell Pickett), diaries (ElizaAndrews),andnovels(EllenGlasgow)andfordecadesattempted toshapepublicmemoryofthewar.34Almostcertainly,thegenderofthese historiansinfluencedRandalltopassovertheirdetailsoftheMarchto theSeaandmadeuniversityprofessorsFrancisButlerSimkinsandJames Welch Patton react with indulgent condescension to their reliability as historicalsources.TheirWomenoftheConfederacy,publishedin1936, temperedsouthernwomen’simpassionedaccountswithobjective,“professional”historicaljudgment.Theyusedphrasessuchas,“Aftermaking dueallowancesfortheinevitableexaggerationswhicharefoundinthe feminineaccountsofthebehavioroftheinvaders....”35FarfromcreditingthesewomenwithwritingthefirstsocialhistoriesoftheCivilWar, theauthorschargedthemwithhavingananachronisticandsubjective viewofthepastthatpreventedtheSouthfromadvancingwiththerest ofthenation:“ThehatredofNortherners...continuedtoglowinthe feminineheartlongaftertheVeteransoftheBlueandtheGraywere bridging‘thebloodychasm’throughdemonstrationsoffraternity.Thousandsofthewomenofthepost-bellumSouthnevertiredofinstilling intotheiryoungthevividtalesofbygonecrueltyandwrongs.”36Justas FreemangentlybutfirmlyputMitchellinherhistoricalplace,socontemporaryhistorians(andtheirlate-twentieth-centurypeers)continued todisparageanddoubttheobjectivityofsouthernwomendiaristsand
JezebelsandRebels,CavaliersandCompromise 149
historians.Mitchell’snovelgavethemavoiceandapublicthatnohistoriancouldhopetomatch. Mitchell’s women do not merely endure deprivation; they fight against it. One of Gone with the Wind’s more controversial passages is aFederalsoldier’sattemptedrapeofScarlettintheautumnof1864.AlthoughGonewiththeWindcontainsseveralincidentsofYankeesoldiers ravaging the countryside, looting homes, and attempting to burn Tara, Scarlett’sfirstmeetingwithaYankeeishermostviolentandempowering.37 Armed with her dead husband’s pistol, she shoots the uniformed intruderfullintheface.WiththehelpofMelanie,shelootshiscorpse andfindsenoughmoneyandtrinketsstolenfromothersouthernfamilies duringhismarchwithShermantosupportherfamilythroughthewinter.Shefeelsnoremorse,onlyretribution.Manycontemporaryreaders reactedstridentlytotheideaofasoldierwearinganAmericanuniform lootingandthenattemptingtorapeasouthernwoman.Later,duringthe Reconstructionera,Scarlettisnearlyrapedbyawhite-trashvagrantand a freedman in Atlanta. Although late-twentieth-century historians have allowedthatFederaltroopsdidcommitabitofvandalismintheSouth, manyhavequestionedordiscountedtherapeofwhitesouthernwomen byFederalsoldiersorblacks,speculatingthattherapeofblackwomen wasfarmorecredible.38Faustallegedthattherapeofwhitewomenwas almostnonexistent,citingthefewcaseseverbroughttotrialduringReconstruction.Mitchell’scommentssixtyyearsearlierprovideanilluminating explanation for this absence. According to Mitchell, if a white womanwererapedintheSouth,itwouldbetooshamefultodisplayin apubliccourt.Thevictim’sfather,brother,orhusbandwouldconsider it his duty to kill the rapist before a trial and thus avoid the stigma.39 Mitchell’sclaimwassupportedbyCivilWardiaristMaryChesnut,who describedherhusband’sownreluctantrevelationoftheviciousrapeand murderofawhiteSouthCarolinagirlbysevenofSherman’smen.The victim’snamewasnotmentionedoutofrespectforherfamily,whohad beenforcedtowitnessthecrime.40Mitchellstoodbyherresearch,which includedtestimonyfromFederalandConfederateofficers,butshealso paidheedtothevoicesofsouthernwomen—eventhosevoicesthatcould notorwouldnotspeak.
SouthernWomeninHollywood,1930–1936 Mitchell’sdetailedconfrontationofthedarkerhistoryoftheCivilWar wassomethingthatfewprofessionalhistorianswishedtoaddress,butin
150 CivilWarandReconstruction
theearlystagesoffilmproduction,Selznickglossedoveranyimpending controversyandstatedthathewantedchangestothenovelkepttoaminimum:“Ifindmyselfaproducerchargedwithrecreatingthebestloved bookofourtimeandIdon’tthinkanyofushaveevertackledanythingthat isevencomparabletothelovethatpeoplehaveforit.”41Afterpurchasing thefilmrights,Selznickdespairedabouthowtoscriptthethousand-page historicalnovel.HeappealedtoMitchell,butshewasoneofthefewsuccessfulAmericanwriterswhorefusedtoinvolveherselfinthecreationof GonewiththeWind’sscreenplay.SelznickandassistantKatharineBrown madeseveralattemptstolurehertoHollywoodasaco-screenwriterand productionassistanttooverseethehistoricalauthenticityofthefilm,but MitchellwaswaryofwhatthegroupofSouthernCalifornianswoulddo tosouthernhistory.Earlyon,shewrotetoBrownthatshehopedLamar Trotti,anativeGeorgianandauthorityontheCivilWarera,wouldwrite the screenplay.42 Trotti was under contract to Darryl Zanuck, however, andSelznickwasnotabouttoasktoborrowhim.Instead,heassignedone ofhisownstudiowriters,SidneyHoward,totheproject.WhenMitchell learnedthattheNewEngland–bornBroadwayplaywrightwouldbewritingthescreenplay,shelostinterest.Howardwrotetoher,askingforher help,butshepolitelydeclinedtoofferanysuggestionsoradvice.43 WhydidMitchellrefuseallactiveinvolvementinthefilmproject? Herattitudetowardthefilmindustryseemstohavebeenextremelycautious.AssheexplainedtoSidneyHoward,herbookwasherpeople’shistory,andshedidnotwanttobeheldaccountableforHollywood’schronic distortions of the truth: “Southerners have been wonderful to my book andIamgratefulindeedthattheylikeitandareinterestedintheforthcomingpicture.NotforworldsorformoneywouldIputmyselfinthe positionwhereiftherewassomethingtheydidn’tlikeinthepicture,they couldsay,‘Well,youworkedonthescript.Whydidyouletthis,thatand theothergetby?’”44Althoughanavidfilmgoerandundoubtedlypleased with the $50,000 Selznick paid for the screen rights, Mitchell felt that Hollywood’s representation of the Civil War since the advent of sound wasnotencouraging. Griffith’s controversial Birth of a Nation was still circulating in nationaltheatersinthemid-1930s,butHollywood’smostrecentsoundfilms onthewartendedtofocusonthenorthernwarexperienceandviewof the conflict. Gary Cooper’s portrayal of a Yankee soldier-turned-spy in OnlytheBrave(Paramount,1930)isoneexample.WhenCaptainJames Braydon is forced to go behind enemy lines, the patriotic Union hero is faced with a more insidious opponent than southern cannons; belle
JezebelsandRebels,CavaliersandCompromise 151
BarbaraCalhoun(playedbyMaryBrian)istheembodimentofseductive southernromanticism.ButthesteadfastCaptainBraydonischurlishto Calhoun and, most impoliticly for a spy, refuses to drink a toast to the ConfederateStatesofAmericaataplantationball.Eventually,though, GrantandLeearereconciledinthefinalsequence,andJamesandBarbaraaremarried.OnlytheBraveavoidsanyoverthistoricaliconography orcommentarywithinastandardestablishmentviewofthewar.There isnoimposingopeningforewordinAgnesBrandLeahyandEdwardE. ParamoreJr.’sscript—instead,textisconfinedtoscattereddates.Theone documentinsertgivesaUniongeneralthepowertowriteandtherefore controlhistory:aclose-upofGeneralGrantashewriteshisfamousletter toGeneralHalleck,“I’llfightitoutonthislineifittakesallsummer.”45 Thereisnoattempttoexplainthewarbeyondasetmilitaryconflictand apersonalbattlebetweenseductive,passivefemininityandmasculinity. ThereasonsbehindtheConfederaterebellionremainamystery. In1933,RKO’sprestigiousremakeofLittleWomenwasalsosetduringtheCivilWar,anditpresentedtheNewEnglandMarchfamilyas exclusivelyfemale.TheSouthwasevenmoreforeignherethaninOnly theBrave;theregionneverenteredLittleWomen’snarrativeormise-enscène. Other than accounting for Mr. March’s absence in the early sequences,thewarisbarelyfeltbythefamily.EvenSarahY.Masonand VictorHeerman’searlyscripts,thoughreinforcingthenarrativewithtext insertsfromJo’smanuscripts,donotcontainhistoricalforewordsortextualallusionstothewar.46 AsshootingcommencedonLittleWomen,MGMplannedMarion Davies’snextstarvehicle,Operator13(1934).Studioswererecognizing thepowerofhistoricalsettingsingarneringcriticalandbox-office“prestige,”andDavies’sroleasGailLoveless,anorthernactress-turned-spy,was obviouslymodeledontheroleCooperhadplayedthreeyearsbefore.Like JamesBraydon,GailLovelesscanexperiencetheSouthonlyasaforeign countryandanenemy.ThoughromanticallyinvolvedwithConfederate officer-spyJackGailliard(Cooper),shefirmlybelievesinnationalunion. ButLovelessneverreallyexperiencesthewar;everything—evenherrole asamasterspy—isanextensionofheractingcareer,anexcitingfiction. Throughoutmostofthefilm,sherepeatedlyplaysontheweaknessesof southernmanhood.WhereasLovelessis,asshesays,“manenough”tobe asuccessfulspy,Gailliardisfeminized;heisattractedanddupedbyLovelessasbothablack-facedlaundressandaCopperheadbelle.Onlywhen shefallsinlovewithhimdoessherealizethatherrole-playinghasdeadly consequences.ItisGailliard,aConfederate,whoremindsherthatreal
152 CivilWarandReconstruction
peoplesufferanddieinwar.Onlyaftersheisconfrontedbythereality ofwardoesthefilmincludeamontageofrecognizabledatesandbattles. Yetinthefinalmomentsofthefilm,thetworomanticleadsdemandthat everyone“forgetwar,forgethate,forgetdivision.”47 Thefilmconsistentlydistancestheaudiencefromthepast.Operator 13wasbasedonRobertW.Chamber’sserialinCosmopolitan,andthe film made no attempt to disguise its fictional antecedents. The credits unfoldovershotsofafemininehandturningthepagesofthemagazine. Thereisnoforeword;theopeningwarmontageshowssoldiersswordfightingandsingingratherthanshootingriflesandloadingcannons.Anearly scriptplannedtoacknowledgehowthepresentinformsourmemoriesof thepast,showingtheagedLovelessrememberinghercareerofwartime espionageasa1933CivilWarparadepassesherbedroomwindow,but thescenewascut. Universal’s1936adaptationofEdnaFerber’sShowBoatwassetafter theCivilWarandresonatedwithmanystudios’historicalreworkingsof silent“classics”(TwentiethCentury–Fox’sRamona,UnitedArtists’Last oftheMohicans).However,inspiteofthehistoricalspecificityofFerber’s novelandherattempttodramatizethehorrorofracialprejudiceandmiscegenation laws (both topics usually excised from Hollywood films by the ProductionCode),thefilmpresentstheSouthasamythicplayground.The final number of Kim Ravenal’s Broadway show is a crinoline, moonlight- and-magnoliadancesequenceinwhichscoresofwhite-clad,hoop-skirted chorusgirlshumblackspiritualswhileblacksstayverymuchinthebackground.Broadway’scrudeviewofnineteenth-centurysouthernlifecommercializes a myth, just as Chicago nightclub owners turn Magnolia’s talentforsinging“Negrosongs”into“coonshouting.” WhileStarkYoungwastellingMargaretMitchellHollywoodhorror storiesabouttheadaptationofhisnovelSoRedtheRose,DarrylZanuck’s latest vehicle for Shirley Temple, the Civil War tearjerker The Littlest Rebel,wasplayingintheaters.AlthoughZanuckwasappalledbyoneof hisscreenwriter’shistoricalinventions(“IfyouevensuggestthatShirley TemplewastheinspirationfortheGettysburgAddress,they’llthrowrocks atus”),48thefilmwasconcernednotwithportrayingsouthernhistorybut withpresentingFox’smostpopularstar,andtheCivilWarSouthfunctioned well as a sentimental background. If this was Hollywood’s view ofsouthernhistory,itisnowonderthatMitchellwishedtodisassociate herselffromSelznickandHoward. HowevertriteTheLittlestRebel’sviewoftheSouth’sCivilWarexperience,Zanuck’sdecisiontocastthecountry’sleadingbox-officestar
JezebelsandRebels,CavaliersandCompromise 153
asastaunchConfederatechildrepresentedasignificantdeparturefrom Hollywood’searlyFederalsympathies.Andforallitssentimentalityand lack of historical credentials, The Littlest Rebel employed many of the themesunitingsouthernhistoricalcinemainthelate1930s—thestrong womenrunningtheplantations,thekinshipbetweenblackservantsand white mistresses, the confrontation with violent northern invaders, the womanastheprincipalrebelagainstthegovernment,theaberrantvoice tellingConfederatehistoryindefianceofnorthern“national”histories. ScarlettO’Hara’spint-sizedpredecessorsucceededwithaudiences,and in1935,Virgieprovedtheattractionofastrongsouthernwomanasarebelliousfigure,bothdestabilizingandthenhealingthecourseofnational unioninthefinalframes.
JezebelsandRebels WiththepublicationofGonewiththeWindinthesummerof1936,Hollywoodwasfacedwiththepossibilityofconfrontingnotonlytraditional historiesofthewarbutalsotheracialandsexualdiscoursessilentlystructuringthosenarratives.TheAmericanfilmindustry’strueproblematization of race and history occurred in Warner Brothers’ antebellum epic JezebelandinGonewiththeWind.Foryears,criticsofMitchell’snovel and Hollywood’s Depression-era “plantation epics” have claimed that these texts preserve racist discourses and color barriers.49 A closer look revealstheirambiguouspresentationofthesouthernbelle’ssexualand racial identity—one that the cinematic medium amplified in startling ways. AlthoughinhercorrespondenceMitchellassertedthatwomenhistoricalnovelistssuchasMaryJohnson(CeaseFiring,TheLongRoll)had thegreatestinfluenceonherwork,shewasapublicadmirerofthework ofThomasNelsonPage.Page’sReconstructionnovelRedRock(1898), far from anticipating the racism in Thomas Dixon’s The Clansman (1905), actually projects a view of a multiracial southern family and regionbothbeforeandafterthewar.WhereasDixonenvisionedAmericanidentitythroughwhitesolidarityintheNorthandSouth,excluding blacksfromthenewnation,Page’sblacksaretruefamilymembersof thesoutherncommunityanduniteagainstthethreatofwhitenorthern intervention.50 Mitchell would bring Page’s multiracial family to a new level, emphasizingboththeculturalandthebloodtiesbetweenblackandwhite southernerstosuchanextentthatherheroineembodiedthishybridity.
154 CivilWarandReconstruction
ItismorethanScarlett’s“blackIrish”ancestryechoingtheblackslaves aroundher;51Scarlettisactuallypartoftheirfamily.Infact,Mitchell’s ScarlettiscloserthanfamilytoMammy,Pork,andDilcey.ThoughshorttemperedwitheveryoneelsewhileshestrugglesforsurvivalatTarainthe winterof1864,ScarletttreatsthestoicandcourageousDilcey,amixedraceCherokeeandAfricanAmericanwoman,or“mustee,”asanequal. WhileMammyisindespairoverthedeathofScarlett’smother,Dilcey andScarlettgrimlyendure.Withherfatherinsane,Scarlettmayidentify herselfasthe“headofthefamily,”butitisPork,Dilcey’shusband,who becomesthemanofthehouse.ScarlettandDilceysharePorkinamakeshiftsouthernhouseholdwheretraditionalpatriarchalrolesandfamilial controlshiftamongthethreeofthem.Later,whenScarlettgivesherdead father’swatchtoPork(amanmoreworthyofinheritingthetokensymbol thanScarlett’sownson),Porktellsher,“‘Efyouwuzjes’halfasniceter w’ite folks as you is ter niggers, Ah spec de worl’ would treat you better.’”52ScarlettisbothasexuallyandaraciallytransgressiveforceinGone withtheWind,andherkinshipwithandunderstandingofblacksembody bloodandculturaltiesthatinmanywaysmakeherthemostpowerful biracialheroineinAmericanhistoricalliterature. Mitchell’s racial mixing of Scarlett is metaphorical, but it is not unique in contemporary southern period literature. Owen Davis’s play Jezebel,producedonBroadwayin1933,hintedthattheemotionalkinship between Julie Marston and black folks was more than skin deep. Race, gender, and rebellion are fused in the character of Julie, who is moreathomewithherblackservantsthanwithwhitefolks.Theyeven favorthesameclothes.Fromthemomentsheseesthatreddressinthe NewOrleansshop,Juliewantsit,causingherfiancétoremarkinhorror, “Why,it’smorefittobeseenattheQuadroonBall.”53Shewearsadress thatonlyablackwomanoraprostitutewouldwear.Shedefiesherfiancé and,intheplay,isquiteathomewatchingacockfightwithmulattoand blackriverfront“trash.”Later,whenshereturnsfromatripabroad,Julie visitsherservantMammyLouandhernewtwinsbeforeseeingherwhite family.ThecinematicmediummakesJulie’sracialborder-crossingeven moreevocative;onscreen,Julie’sreddresshasbecomeblack. JezebelwassetnotintheCivilWarperiodbutinantebellumNewOrleans,atimethatnonethelessshowedthegrowingeconomicandcultural tensions between North and South. When Jack Warner refused to buy GonewiththeWindforBetteDavis,heboughtOwenDavis’splayforher instead. Screenwriter Robert Buckner brought the time period forward from 1830 to 1852 to emphasize the impending crisis. The similarities
JezebelsandRebels,CavaliersandCompromise 155
Julieandher maidsharesimilar tasteindresses. (Jezebel)
betweenDavis’sJulieandMitchell’sScarlett,violentandpowerfulheroineswhocontrolthefilms’narratives,wereextreme,butironically,when DavidO.SelznickwrotetoWarnerobjectingtoJezebel’splagiarismofhis forthcomingproductionofGonewiththeWind,hecitedthefilm’suseof southernhistory.“Thereisonesceneofthemenaroundthedinnertable whichactuallyisaslowspotinyourpicture....Irefertothedialogue scenedealingwiththedifferencebetweentheNorthandtheSouth,the discussionofimminentwar,andthepredictionbytheSouthernerthatthe Northwillwinbecauseofitssuperiormachinery,etc.Thissceneislifted bodilyfromGonewiththeWind[and]hasnothingtodowitheitherthe originalplayJezebelorwithyouradaptation.”54Warner’sbriefandcourteousreplywasarebuke,andheenclosedcopiesofthescenesreplicated fromDavis’splay.Theproducers’disputeoverhistoricalargument,over thereasonsfortheSouth’sdefeat,indicatedhowimportanthistoryhad becomeinfilm:theseweren’tjustmoney-makingcostumeromances.In fact,itsassociationwithMitchell’snovelledSelznicktobelievethatGone withtheWind’snationalpopularitygavehimacopyrightonthispartof Americanhistory. ButsouthernhistorywasalsocrucialtoJezebel;thenarrativewasuselesswithoutit.Bucknerwroteinthefirstdraftofthescript,“Formany years,infictionandpictures,theSouthhasbeenpresentedinthesame fashion—untilthewholesceneandallthecharactershavebecometyped andfamiliaradnauseam.ButNewOrleans,perhapsthemosttrulysouthern in spirit and history of all locales, has been strangely neglected.”55
156 CivilWarandReconstruction
Buckner’scommentsrecallMitchell’sreasonsforrevisingCivilWarhistoryandwritingaboutGeorgia.Thedifferenceisthatscreenwriterswere alsoawareofthehistoricalcachetofinnovationandargument—ofwriting something new, a part of southern history that had been neglected bytraditionalhistorians.Bucknernotedthattheimmediateantebellum yearshadgreaterpotentialthanOwenDavis’soriginal1830setting.But Davis’s controversial heroine represented Warner Brothers’ greatest historicalchallenge. WarnerBrothershandledJezebelasitsmajorAmericanprestigeeffort of 1938.56 It had all the structural credentials of a major historical film, including Warner Brothers’ massive research bibliographies and background for both screenwriters and set designers. Studio publicity tooktwoforms.Ontheonehand,itemphasizedthefilmmakers’historicalresearch.Jezebel’sresearch“bible”wasextensive,withreferencesto everything from Charles Gayarre’s History of Louisiana (1866) to Lyle Saxon’smorerecentpopularhistory,FabulousNewOrleans(1928).57Set designersandcostumedesignerswerenottheonlyonestoconsultthe library or ask questions of the research department. Screenwriters’ and directors’queriesfilledpagesofthelog.WarnerBrothers,morethanany otherstudio,prideditselfonitshistoricalapparatus.Ontheotherhand, advertising in the press book indicated that the publicists were wary of marketingthefilmasafull-blown,serioushistoricalfilm.Toavoidany highbrowhistoricalcomplicationsthatmightkeeptheaveragefilmgoer away, they stressed the contemporary nature of the story, the heroine’s modernoutlook,andtheup-to-datelovescenes.“She’samodernmissin anold-fashionedsetting,”wroteoneofBetteDavis’sJulie.58Thesestudio publicistshadanallyinOwenDavis,whohadintroducedhispublished playasfollows:“Anattempthasbeenmadethatthefactsandsocialcustomsoftheperiodshouldbeauthentic,buttheprincipalefforthadbeen toward presenting the characters of this story as human beings; writing ofthemasthoughtheylivedtodayratherthanasthoughtheyweredim figuresofaghostlypast.”59 So Warner Brothers followed two paths, emphasizing both the historical contentandrelevanceandtheheroine’smodern appeal. But in combiningJulie’smodernsexualrebellionwiththepremiseofhistorical accuracy,WarnerBrothersmadeJulie,theembodimentofsouthernrebellion,thecharacterwithwhommostpeopleidentified.Jezebelplaced the seductive and transgressive power of the South in the character of JulieMarston.Herpersonalrebellionthusbecomesemblematicofthe South’s rebellion against northern economic repression. Because she
JezebelsandRebels,CavaliersandCompromise 157
floutssexualconventionsbywearingadressonlyablackwomanoraprostitutewouldwear,Julieisatruespokeswomanforallsouthernwomen. HerimpassioneddescriptionsoftheSouthandherbewitchingattempts tolurePrestonDillard,thesouthern-bornBostonbanker,backhometo her are some of the film’s most persuasive sequences. When Julie and Prestonstandaloneinthemoonlight,sheseeshimwaverinhisdevotion forhisnorthernwifeandnorthernbankandcriestriumphantly,“We’re inyourblood,andyou’llneverforgetus.”ForJulie,blackbloodispart ofhertoo.WhensheplaysthesouthernbelleforDillard’snorthernwife, shegatherstheplantation’sblackslavechildrenontheporch,andsheis theonlywhitetojoinintheirsongs.Herviolentlywhitedressnotonly
Thecolorofthedress isred,butwhatisthe coloroftheheroine? (Jezebel)
Juliesingswith“her children.”(Jezebel)
158 CivilWarandReconstruction
contrasts with the skin of the slave children but also darkens her own skin.Eventually,Dillardrejectsthisappealoftaintedsouthernwomanhood,evenwhenitisdeceptivelycladinwhite.ButhisrejectionofJulie’s South,hischoiceofapure,untaintednorthernwoman,signifieshisfaith inracialpurityandindustrialorderandhisrejectionofthepast.Itisa decisionthatnearlycostshimhislifeattheendofthefilm. Hal Wallis originally assigned Edmund Goulding to direct Jezebel before replacing him with William Wyler. Goulding recorded his view ofthefilminsomeproductionnotes,believingthatittoldthetaleofthe perils of “petticoat government.”60 Goulding ignored the fundamental elisionofsouthernhistoryandthedangerousfemalehistorianthatJohn Huston’sfinalscriptandWyler’sdirectionbringout.Julieisdangerous, impure,combative,obsessedwithmemoriesofhersouthernchildhood andtheloveofPrestonDillard,butshehasapowerthatisimpossibleto exorcise.Itisshewhowalksout,resolute,fearless,andhealthy,toface the pestilence of yellow fever. The film’s racially transgressive heroine wasvirtuallyunknownto1930shistoriography.WilliamDunning,Ulrich Phillips,ClaudeBowers,andThomasDixonstilldominatedprofessional and popular historical opinion on race and slavery. W. E. B. DuBois’s BlackReconstruction(1935)presentedaradicallydifferentviewofAmerican race relations, but it was not until C. Vann Woodward’s Tom Watson:AgrarianRebel,publishedwithinmonthsofJezebel,thatmainstream Americanhistoriansbegantochallengetraditionalracialhistory.61However,WoodwarddealtwithPopulistchallengestosegregation;hedidnot questionthewhitesymbolofantebellumsouthernwomanhood.
TheBlackIrishofGonewiththeWind LikeJulie,ScarlettO’Harawasclosertoherblackservantsthantoher whitefamily.AlthoughScarlett’smotherneverperceivedherrebellious character,Mammysawandunderstoodit.Duringtheimpoverished,agonizingmonthsafterherreturntoTara,MitchellhasScarlettdoingtasks thatslavesconsiderbeneath“houseniggers.”Shecapturesandtiesupa cowtoprovidemilkforMelanie’sbaby,shegoestoTwelveOakstogather food, she hunts for the animals in the swamp, she hoes and plows and pickscotton.Intheprocess,sheevenbeginstolooklikeMammy,Dilcey, andPrissy.Onscreen,herskindarkensfromsunburnandexposure,her thick,blackhairfrizzlesintheheat,herclothesarepatchedandfilthy. SheevenwearsMammy’ssunbonnetinthefields.Occasionally,Selznick andhisteamoffilmmakersshowanawarenessofthisracialtransforma-
JezebelsandRebels,CavaliersandCompromise 159
Thepoliticsof raceanddress: ScarlettandPrissy. (Gonewiththe Wind)
tion.WalterPlunkett,famedcostumedesignerspecializinginhistorical films,madePrissy’sandScarlett’spost-siegedressesoutofthesamecheap fabric.Melanieworeanapronmadeoutofaburlapsack,andSuellen andCareenworecottonprintdressesthathadobviouslyoncebelonged toslaves.62 Sidney Howard’s decision to eliminate cracker Will Benteen and slavewomanDilceyfromthescriptmayindicatehisandSelznick’sdesperateeffortstostreamlineGonewiththeWind’scomplexnarrative,but alsotomaskScarlett’sclose,sympatheticfriendshipwithtworacialand classhybrids—thepoorwhiteandtheCherokee–AfricanAmerican.The factthatScarlett’sonlyunguardedrelationshipsarewithWillandDilcey marksherownstatusasaracialandclasshybridafter1864.Buttraces ofScarlett’shybridityremaininthefilm.Undoubtedly,themostpowerfulsceneinboththenovelandthefilminvolvesScarlett’sandtheOld South’srebirthontheNegrosoilintheslavequarters.InMitchell’snovel, Scarlett has just returned home to Tara and realizes that she must run the plantation, care for her family, and save them all from famine and thedestructionofSherman’sinvadingarmy.Theghostsofherancestors and the memory of their struggles in Europe and the New World lull her into a dreamless sleep, but in the morning, she is still haunted by hungerandtheruinoftheoldworldthatshelovedbuttookforgranted. ScarlettwalkstoJohnWilkes’sTwelveOaksinsearchoffoodandsees southernhistoryincharredruinsatherfeet:“Theretoweredthetwelve oaksastheyhadstoodsinceIndiandays,butwiththeirleavesbrownfrom
160 CivilWarandReconstruction
fireandthebranchesburnedandscorched.Withintheircirclelaythe ruinofJohnWilkes’house,thecharredruinsofthatoncestatelyhome which had crowned the hill in white-columned dignity. . . . Here was theWilkesprideinthedustatherfeet.”63TwelveOaks,morethanthe rambling,immigrant-builtTara,exemplifiedthepowerfulracialmythof theantebellumSouth.Scarlettgetsnosustenancetherebutfindsfood in the slave gardens near the ruins. She pulls a radish from the earth, eatsit,andthenvomits,fallinginthedirt.Whilelyingthere,memories ofadeadageassaulther.Whensherisesatlastfromtheslaveearth—a purgedandgrimsouthernphoenixrisingfromtheashes—sheswearsan oath,showingnoloyaltytoprincipleormemorybutonlytoherselfand herfamily’ssalvation.ThenewSouthisliterallybornfromtheashesof theold;Scarlettdrawsnewlifefromthesoilofherformerslaves.Shehas worntheirclothes,eatentheirfood,sleptontheirearth,andherkinship isnowtotal. HowardandSelznickrecognizedtheoverarchingimportanceofthis sequence,andScarlett’soath(restagedatTara)concludesthefirsthalfof thefilm.Ironically,thefirsttimeoneseesthemythicalsouthernmoonlightiswhenitilluminatesforScarletttheruinsofTwelveOaksandthe ravagedfacadeofTara.DirectorVictorFlemingandcameramanErnie Haller turned the full force of American cultural myth on the devastation of Sherman’s march. Scarlett finds death and madness inside her home,andasshestaggersoutside,sheseestheravagedexpanseofslave gardensandhousesthatonceheldlife.Hallershotintotheharshredlight ofpredawn,turningScarlettintoanear-blacksilhouette,asymbolofall strugglingsouthernwomen,regardlessofcolor,in1864.Withherdark, frizzledhairandragged,hooplessdress,Scarlettlooksnotonlypoorwhite but black as she limps toward the slave gardens. In one of the longest unbrokenclose-upsinclassicalHollywoodcinema,64FlemingandHaller followedherdescenttotheslaveearthandherextraordinaryandbrutal refusaltobowtodefeatbeforetrackingoutonherrigidsilhouette,echoed bytheremainsofacharredoak.Here,inthisallegoryofthecourseof southernhistory(defeat,purge,recovery,revenge),thefilmmakersrecast the iconic image of southern rebellion as an almost biracial woman.65 TheirviolationofthenormsofclassicalHollywoodfilmmakingamplified anotherlargerhistoricaltransgressioninstandardplantationnarrativesof theCivilWarSouth. ThiswasthepivotalmomentofhistoricaltransitionforbothMitchell andSelznick,onethatconfrontedthemythofsouthernhistoryandthe shadowy future of the reconstructed southern woman. In its pursuit of
ScarlettandtheSouth riseagain. (GonewiththeWind)
Theoath. (GonewiththeWind)
The“reconstructed” southernwoman. (GonewiththeWind)
162 CivilWarandReconstruction
controversialhistoricalfiction,Hollywooddidnotforgettheroleofthe biracialwomaninAmericanhistory,hersubversivepastactingincounterpointtotraditionalhistory’sacceptedracialcategoriesandbiography’s patriarchalcanonofheroes.AlthoughSelznickandHowardfearedhistoricizing the Reconstruction era in part two,66 replacing the projected textandotherhistoricaliconographyoftheCivilWarsequenceswitha melodramaticromance,GonewiththeWindwasnotatraditionallyracistnarrativethatdefinedblackandwhiteAmericansthroughrigidgenre typologiesandbinaryoppositions.Instead,throughfilm’shistoriographic tool—cinematography—racialmixingleftitstraceonthehistoricalnarrative.
IgnoringReconstruction Hollywood’spreviousattempttofilmAmericanhistoryintheantebellum South through Reconstruction had resulted in one of the most controversialbox-officeattractions.D.W.Griffith’sTheBirthofaNationcould still give Selznick heartburn in 1937. Howard immediately sensed the perilofre-creatingthehistoricalperiodsynonymousinHollywoodwith that1915film.Inhis“preliminarynotesonascreentreatment,”dated 14December1936,hebegan,“Ourchiefdifficultywillcomefromthe lackoforganizationinthesecondhalfofthenovel.”Perhapshealready envisionedrepetitionsoftheraceriotsandpubliccondemnationthathad doggedGriffith’sfilm—andGriffithhadnothadtheHaysOfficetodeal with.HowardfeltthatintransformingMitchell’shistoricalnovelintoa film,heandSelznickshould“thinkofthebookasScarlett’sstory”andfocusonthemainthrustofthebook,namely,“whatsheconceivestobethe tragedyofanunrealizedlove.”Howardwantedtodownplaythehistoricalcontentandmakethefilmacompellinglovestory,andhecriticized Mitchellforallowing“otherthemes”todisruptandoverwhelmthesimplelovenarrative.Howardwascertainthatthehistorical“forces”would create“difficulties”inthesecondhalfofthenarrativewhen“awholenew seriesofforces,”Reconstructionandracism,hadtobeexplained.67 Mitchell’sinterestinhernovel’shistoricalbackgroundextendedbeyond1865.ShedescribedthemajoreventsofthepostwarerainGeorgia, the repressive (if one was a white southerner) Reconstruction government,thefallofthesouthernaristocracy,andtheriseoftheKuKluxKlan asarefugefordisenfranchisedwhitemenandameansof“protecting” southernwomen.Incontrast,SelznickandHowardavoidedtreatingthe Reconstructionerawiththesamedeferenceaccordedtothewar.Earlyin
JezebelsandRebels,CavaliersandCompromise 163
preproduction,HowardandSelznickagreedthatScarlett’skillingofthe Yankeecavalryman“wasoneofthemostexcitinganddramaticscenesin thebook”andhadtoremaininthescript.68Anumberofdiatribesfrom Union veterans’ groups demanded the removal of all scenes of Federal soldiers looting and burning southern homes,69 and although Selznick compromised,cuttingseveralviolentencounterswithUnionsoldiersat Tara and their final attempts to burn the place to the ground, he kept Scarlett’sshootingoftheYankee. NosuchhistoricaldisputesanimatedtheconstructionofGonewith the Wind’s second half. Their withdrawal of text from the second half ofthefilmsuggeststhefilmmakers’distinctuneasinesswiththisperiod andallthestructuralhistoricalceremonyaccordedtothewartimeConfederacy.Thisfull-blownretreatintothepurelyfictionalromancemight indicatethatblackandwhiteGeorgia,asaconqueredterritory,waseffectivelysilencedbytheReconstructiongovernmentandwassimplywritten out of the country’s official history. Far more likely, though, is that SelznickandHowardwantedtoavoidanyracialincidentslinkingtheir filmtoGriffith’sBirthofaNation.ItwasnotthatMitchell’snovelechoed ThomasDixon’sstridentracism;herownviewthat“thescourgeofwar hadbeenfollowedbytheworsescourgeofReconstruction”wasfarless virulentthanhistorianClaudeG.Bowers’sTheTragicEra(1929),which referredtoReconstructionasanatrocity.70 The Reconstruction era was not entirely unexplored in Hollywood cinema.In1936,TwentiethCentury–Fox’sPrisonerofSharkIslandvividlydepictedthemobhysteriaandviolentnationalantagonismtoward the white South following the assassination of Lincoln (while masking theera’smoreremarkableifabbreviatedattemptstoimprovethelivesof blacksoutherners).ButSidneyHowardwasnotNunnallyJohnson.Inhis outlinetoSelznick,Howardconfessedthatwhenthenarrativereached Reconstruction,hewas“alittleshaky...largelybecauseIwantifpossible toavoidtellingtheaudiencethatGeorgiahadrefusedtoratifythevote, onthegroundsitisalittledrydramatically.”71Butthisexcusewasingenuous;farmoredangerouswasthepotentialnegativepress.Selznickworriedaboutalienatingblackviewers,butheseemedevenmoreconcerned aboutthegrowingfascisminEuropeandAmerica.Sincethe1920s,the KlanhadbecomeevenmoreeagertoattackJewsthanblacks.Ashewrote toHoward,“IpersonallyfeelthatweshouldcutouttheKlanentirely.It wouldbedifficult,ifnotimpossible,toclarifyforaudiencesthedifference betweentheoldKlanandtheKlanofourtimes....I,forone,havenodesiretoproduceanyanti-negrofilmeither....Idohopethatyouwillagree
164 CivilWarandReconstruction
with me on this omission of what might come out as an unintentional advertisementforintolerantSocietiesintheseFascist-riddentimes.”Later intheletter,Selznickconcludedthat“ourgreatproblemisgoingtobe togetthebackgroundinunobtrusivelywhileweconcentrateonthepersonalstory.”72HereherevealshisattitudetowardhistoryinGonewiththe Wind:itwasanuncomfortablenarrativecomponenthewantedtoavoid as much as possible, particularly with regard to the Reconstruction era andracism.Selznickhadmanylettersfromblackorganizationswarning himtomakean“acceptable”filmorfacetheirboycott,eventhough,as filmhistorianThomasCrippspointedout,thebookandfilmwerenot violentlyracistandevenundercutracialstereotypes.73ThefilminparticularcreatedagreaterengagementbetweenHollywoodfilmsandblack audiencesandgaveactorssuchasEddieAnderson,OscarPolk,Butterfly McQueen,andHattieMcDanielunprecedentedcontroloverwhatthey wouldsayanddoontheset. Selznick’slegendaryfiddlingwiththescriptandtheparadeofscreenwritersthroughout1937and1938didlittlebutwastetime.Afterseveral frenetic months with Oliver H. P. Garrett, Ben Hecht, and F. Scott Fitzgerald,hewouldreturntoSidneyHoward’soriginaloutlineandadherencetoMitchell’snarrativeanddialogue.AlthoughHowardplanned theforewordandtitlesforGettysburgandSherman’smarchatanearly stage, their exact wording was left until after shooting was completed. Howard’sfinalscriptoutlinedtheopeningtitlebutmadenoattemptto worditbeyond“acommentonthesouthernaristocracy.”74Selznickhired high-profile script doctor Ben Hecht to write the titles toward the end of production.75 The producer’s final touch was to establish the film’s tone and intent with a staple component of historical films, but rather than emphasizing time and place, the impending war, and the end of awayoflife,Selznickretreatedfromthehistoricalperiodandrefrained fromintroducingGonewiththeWindasMitchellhad:byemphasizing theheroine’scompletesubversionofsouthernmyths.Instead,afterthree years in production, Gone with the Wind was introduced as Selznick’s fantasyoftheOldSouth:“Therewasalandofcavaliersandcottonfields calledtheOldSouth....Lookforitonlyinbooks,foritisnomorethana dreamremembered.Acivilizationgonewiththewind.”AlthoughHecht hintedthatGonewiththeWindhadbeentakenfromhistorybooks,the film’srepresentationofthepastwasarticulatedasonlyamyth,America’s lostparadise. SelznickstagedthepremiereinAtlanta,nodoubtattemptingtorecapture the film’s southern antecedents.76 Mitchell was in attendance,
JezebelsandRebels,CavaliersandCompromise 165
and surviving Confederate war veterans paraded once more down Peachtree Street. Although Mitchell did not publicly disown the film, neitherdidsheregretherseverancefromthefilmmakingprocess.Ifthe pudgy militiamen and brand-new uniforms made her cringe, Twelve Oaks’sthree-storywhitecolumnsmadeherlaughashardasshehadat MalcolmCowley’sreview.77ThebookCowleyclaimedshehadwritten wasepitomizedinHecht’sforeword.AlthoughSelznick’sunintentional moments of southern burlesque may have made Mitchell snigger, and thelast-minuteforewordrevealedafaintheartedattempttodehistoricize thetransgressivevoicesofsouthernwomen,Selznick,Howard,Plunkett, Fleming, and Haller maintained the legacy of Eliza Frances Andrews, MaryChesnut,MargaretMitchell,andJulieMarston.AlthoughSelznick mayhaveretreatedfromtheongoingracialbattlesofReconstruction,at the heart of his film, a dark-skinned, ragged woman with frizzled dark hairpushedherselfupfromtheslaveearthofTaraandsworetoforgetthe past.Nearlytenyearslater,shewouldstandinalmostthesameplaceand realizethatforgettingwasimpossible.
This page intentionally left blank
6
TheLivesandDeathsof AbrahamLincoln,1930–1941 Lincolnshouldbetreatedasasymbol.Thetwomenwhopersonify forgivenessinthehistoryoftheworldareJesusChristandAbraham Lincoln....Itwillhavethemostpowerfuleffectwhenthepicturefades outonthetableauofAbrahamLincoln,theNegro,andthelittlegirl,and amilitarybandplaying“Dixie.” —DarrylF.Zanuck,1936
Although, between 1933 and 1939, fictional southern women enabled Hollywood filmmakers to reinscribe and valorize a persistent historical rebellionwithinnationalnarratives,CivilWarandReconstructionbiographieswerealmostexclusivelytheprovinceofmen.Forawhile,Darryl ZanuckhadconsideredMissourioutlawBelleStarrasthesouthernpeople’s “idol,theirsymbolofrevolt”duringReconstruction.CameronRogers’searlystoryoutlineinSeptember1938builtonthesouthernwomanrebeltradition:“InadaywhentheWestwasaman’sprovinceandthefrontierswere sownwiththegravesofmasculineindividualswhohadgoneintoactiona loudsecondtoolate,Belleputherselfonanequalfootingwiththecoolest oftheso-calleddominantsex.”1ButwhileZanuckbelievedthatBellehad thescreenpotentialtobeanotherScarlettO’HaraoraJezebel,henonethelessadvisedscreenwriterstoconstrictherindependenceasaguerrilla leader.2 By 1940–1941, the movie version of Belle Starr had become a passiveifpatrioticmemberofherhusbandSam’sband.Hewasthebrains andthecatalystforrevolt;shebecamehisglamoroussubordinate. 167
168 CivilWarandReconstruction
Zanuck’s decision on Belle Starr reflected his considerable investmentinAmericanmenasthearbitersofhistory.WheretheCivilWarand Reconstructionwereconcerned,likesomanyofhiscolleagues,Zanuck concentratedonLincolnandhislegacy.AbrahamLincoln’spresencein CivilWarfilmssymbolizedthestudios’supremeefforttocountertheracial andsexualdisunioncreatedbytheJezebelsandScarlettsoftheAmerican cinema. He was the homespun man of the people, a hardworking, self- educated lawyer and politician who managed to stay honest, an impressiveheadofstatewhoheldthenationtogetheryetcouldstilltellanoffcolorjoke.Hisworking-classhumanitymadehimagoodcinemacharacter, whereasGeorgeWashington’sunapproachableheroismandRobertE.Lee’s graciousdignitydidnotseemtophotographwell.Inmanyways,Lincoln had been the industry’s stock historical character since he first appeared inEdwinS.Porter’sUncleTom’sCabinin1903.Intheensuingcentury, Lincolnobliginglyreadbyfirelight,splitrails,debatedStephenDouglas, wroteandrewrotetheGettysburgAddress,staredoffintospacewithpropheticsolemnity,andgothimselfshotoverandoveragain.3Throughout the1930s,filmmakersdeployedLincoln’simagewithanunprecedented regularity,ahabitsharedbyacademicsandpopularhistorians. The persistence and variety of Lincoln scholarship were so overwhelmingthatJamesG.Randallheadedhis1934addresstotheAmerican Historical Association “Has the Lincoln Theme Been Exhausted?” AlthoughRandallbelievedthat,giventhenumberofnewLincolndocuments surfacing (principally Robert Todd Lincoln’s collection), professionalhistoriansstillhadopportunitiesfornewLincolnresearch,hehad toadmitthatnonprofessionalshadlongdominatedthefield.“Lincolnis everybody’ssubject,”hewrote,and“thehandoftheamateurhasrested heavily on Lincoln studies.” As a result, Lincoln was perhaps the most manipulatedsubjectinAmericanhistory,hislifeandthoughtsusedby “thepropagandist,thepoliticalenthusiast,theliteraryadventurer.”4Inhis effortstoseparatetherealmsofpopularandprofessionalhistory,Randall didnotconcealhiscontemptforCarlSandburgandAlbertJ.Beveridge, hisgeneration’smostfamousLincolnbiographers.AccordingtoRandall, theirformofbiographywasmerehagiography.Despitetheirpopularappeal,heclaimedthattheirworkmadenooriginalcontributiontoLincoln scholarship.Fewoutsidetheacademypaidanyattention.Butafewshort yearslater,evenSandburgandBeveridgeweresupersededbythepopular historicalworkofDarrylZanuck,LamarTrotti,andRobertSherwood.In adecadedominatedbycountlessLincolncameosandreenactmentsof theLincolnmyth,twomajorbiographicalfilmswouldredefinethehis-
TheLivesandDeathsofAbrahamLincoln 169
toricalvaluesandrhetoricofAmericanbiography,challengingRandall’s viewofAmericanhistoryandmythinwaysheneverdreamed.
EarlySupportingRoles JustasRandallcomplainedthatLincoln’spresencesanctifiedwhatever themeorsubjectthe“historian”chose,formostofthe1930s,Lincolngenerouslysupportedwhateverperiodfilmastudiohappenedtocreate.He lentauthenticitytoinsignificantscripts;hehealedanydivisivetaleofthe CivilWar;hewasaprestigioustouchaddedtosecurethatelusivecritical andbox-officeappeal.In1930LincolnhadbeenD.W.Griffith’schoice toreinvigoratehisfilmmakingcareer.Inthefollowingyears,filmmakers borrowed many of Abraham Lincoln’s emblematic historical moments. Lincolnmythswereappliedlikehistoricaldetails.From1934to1938,he andhiswartimespeechesbecametheAmericancinema’sfavoritehistoricalprops.WhenCharlesLaughton’sEnglishbutlerwentwestinRuggles ofRedGap(1935),heremindedthelawlessfrontiersmenoftheirnational heritagebyrecitingLincoln’sGettysburgAddresstoarowdysaloon.That same year, Shirley Temple sat on Lincoln’s knee and shared an apple withhiminTheLittlestRebel.ItwasLincolnwhosavedlittleVirginia’s Confederatefatherfromachargeofespionage.Hiskindnesstoherand her doting servant (Bill Robinson) softens her heart toward the Union, andafterthewar,sheisreunitedwithbothherfatherandherYankeeofficerfriend.Inbothcases,thescreenwritersaddedRuggles’sGettysburg AddressandVirginia’smeetingwithLincolnatlatestagesofproduction, indicatingthattheywereimaginedaswaystoenlivenotherwisepedestrianscripts.5Zanuck,inparticular,sawLincoln“asasymbol”andplanned thehistoricaltableauasameansofgiving“thecompletepictureofthe CivilWar—theNegroesthathefreed,andtherebelswhomheisgoingto forgive.”6Historywastheultimateguaranteeofprestige,andLincolnwas asafe,uncontroversialmeansofattainingit.Hewasalsogoodforsome extrapublicity,sincetheseaddedLincolntouchesgarneredcriticalattentioninthetradepapers.TheHollywoodReporterwrotethattherecitation ofLincoln’swordswasRugglesofRedGap’s“mostmemorable”moment, whileDailyVarietycalledTemple’sscenewithLincoln(FrankMcGlynn Sr.)“thepicture’shighspot.”7 Of all the studio production companies, Zanuck and his team of screenwritersatTwentiethCentury–Foxwereperhapsthemostcommitted toAmericanhistoricalfilmmaking,andtheyseemedparticularlyproneto insertreferencestoorshotsofLincolnintotheirnineteenth-centurype-
170 CivilWarandReconstruction
riodfilms.OneofthemanyworksinprogressthatZanuckinheritedwhen TwentiethCenturyandFoxmergedin1935wasTheFarmerTakesaWife. BasedonFrankB.ElserandMarcConnelly’ssuccessfulBroadwayplay, itwasanonspecificcharacterstudyofthelivesofErieCanalfreightworkersduringtheconversiontorailroadtransportinthemid-nineteenthcentury.Atthattime,Zanuckhadseveralotherhistoricalscriptstodevelop, includingTheBowery,TheMightyBarnum,andCaptainJanuary,andhe wasnotparticularlyimpressedwithElserandConnelly’scharmingscript oritscallowstar,HenryFonda(who,despiteZanuck’slowexpectations, wouldbecometheproducer’smostpopularactor).ZanuckandscreenwriterEdwinBurke,whoworkedtogetheronTheLittlestRebel,fiddled withthefolksyplayandmanagedtoinsertsomeimpressivelongshotsof coveredwagons,craggypioneers,politicalarguments,andpredictionsof industrialdevelopment.Thepreparationsucceeded,andreviewersnoted thatZanuckhadgiventhematerialthe“prestige”treatment,notonlyin termsofdirectorVictorFlemingandestablishedstarsJanetGaynorand CharlesBickfordbutalsointermsofitsrevampedscript.8 Burke was largely responsible for introducing Lincoln into the latestShirleyTemplevehicleand,buildingonhispopularitywithZanuck, added Lincoln to the text of The Farmer Takes a Wife. Freight workers Molly(Gaynor),Klore(Bickford),andFortune(SlimSummerville)are accustomedtomeetingallkindsofpeopleontheirtravelstoandfromthe ErieCanal,andonemorningtheyagreetotakeonsometemporarypassengers—celebrityactorJuniusBrutusBoothandhissons.Molly,Klore, andFortuneareimpressedanddiscusstheeventsofthedaywiththeir guests.Astheyarechatting,Fortunereadsanewsprintspeechbyanupand-comingpolitician,AbeLincoln,whomheidentifiesas“amanout west.Hedon’twantanymorestatestobeslavestates.”Fortunecallshim agreatman,butoneoftheboysinterruptspugnaciously,“Ineverheardof him.”WhenFortune,smotheringasmile,asksforhisname,theboygives it:“JohnWilkesBooth.Ibethe’llhearofmewhenIgrowup.I’mgoingto befamoustoo.”9ThiswasjustthesortofhistoricalvignetteZanuckliked toaddtoundistinguishedperiodscripts,butcriticThorntonDelehanty found the film too “episodic,” a common criticism of period films that ignorednarrativeforthesakeofhistoricaltouches.Delehantydismissed theBoothsceneas“irrelevant”tothesentimentalromance.10Zanuck’s historical production values were becoming dangerous excesses. Delehanty was not unappreciative of historical films; he had once admired Cimarron,buthedespisedself-conscioushistoricaltricksusedtodivert hisattentionfromanotherwiseblandnarrative.
TheLivesandDeathsofAbrahamLincoln 171
Several months later, Zanuck and Nunnally Johnson would revisit Lincoln and John Wilkes Booth when they developed The Prisoner of SharkIsland.FilmingthelifeofDr.SamuelMuddwasawatershedin American historical cinema; it was the first biographical film of a man victimizedbythefederalgovernmentandunjustlyvilifiedbythepublic. ButitwasalsothefirstfilmtorepresentthedarkersideofAmericanhero worship.Here,Lincolnwasnotneededtogeneratehistoricalauthenticity andnationalreconciliation;instead,hebecamethemeansofintroducingthelostpotentialofnationalunity.Intheopeningsequence,afterthe historicaltitlesandtableauxannouncetheendoftheCivilWar,Johnson introducesLincolnasapotentialhealer.OnhisfirstvisittoRichmondin April1865,heasksthebandtoplay“Dixie.”Itisagesturethatwinsthe grudgingrespectofthepredominantlyConfederatecrowd,forLincoln’s temperatepoliticalprinciplesandplansforReconstructionarenotwidely knownintheregiondevastatedbyfiveyearsofwar.BoothsoonassassinatesLincoln,andthoughhisdeathindirectlycausesMudd’smisfortune, Johnson’sscriptstressesitsbroadereffects.WithLincolngone,Secretary ofWarEdwinStanton,Congress,andtheAmericanpublichavenoone torestraintheirviciousdemandsforrevenge.Lincoln’sapotheosisisthe cruciblefortheabuseofabsolutepower. ThePrisonerofSharkIslandalsorepresentedthestudio’sexpansion ofresearchinpursuitofobscurehistoricalfiguresandevents.Mudd’sexperiencewasunique,butthefilmwoulddemandexactingresearch.Lincolnwassuchafamousandpermanentfixtureinthenationalcinematic mindthatthecritics’andaudiences’awarenessofhistoricalpeccadilloes wouldbemoreacute.Researchwascrucialtomeetcriticalexpectations; evenbeforeZanuckassignedthetopictothescreenwriter,herequested aresearchbibliography.Johnsonlateradmittedthathehadfirstcomeup withtheideaofintroducingLincolninRichmondwithhisconciliatory song request after reading Lloyd Lewis’s Myths after Lincoln.11 Lewis’s bookwasonlyoneofmanyhistoricalstudiesofLincoln’slifeanddeath thatJohnsonwouldreadinpreparationforwritinghisoriginalscreenplay. HealsoreadthegovernmentrecordsoftheMuddtrial,thebiographyof MuddpublishedbyhisdaughterNettiein1903,andthemorecontemporarydiscussionsoftheReconstructionera.12InLewis’sexplorationof thepostassassinationdeificationofLincolnandtheconsequentdemonizationofBooth,Mrs.Surratt,andMudd,Johnsonrealizedthatviolent nationalism had distorted popular history. Although President Andrew Johnsonpardonedthecountrydoctorin1870,recognizingthathehad simplybeeninthewrongplaceatthewrongtime,themilitarycourtand
172 CivilWarandReconstruction
Congress never formally admitted that the charges of conspiracy were false.13Althoughgovernmentrecordsshowedtheimproprietyoftryinga citizeninfrontofamilitarycourtwithouttheabilitytotestifyinhisown defense,Johnsonfoundthathistoricalaccountsoftheassassinationwere tendentious,andMudd’snamewasstillanationalbywordforwrongdoingandshame.Intacklingthiscontroversialandnationallyembarrassingtopic,thescreenwriterrevealedahistoryofpostwarinjusticeandthe public’spassionateneedtocondemnaninnocentmanmerelybecause hewasawhitesoutherner. Zanuck’s preliminary researcher, Sidney Cook, quoted many conflictingreportsanddocumentsclaimingMudd’sinnocenceandguiltin theconspiracytokillLincoln,andhewarnedbothZanuckandJohnson that“wemustnotbeledastraybysuchperfunctorysnap-shotjudgments as the statement in the Reader’s Digest for August 1934,”14 which had firstalertedZanucktothecontroversialtopic.15Althoughthethorough bibliographyandmultiplehistoricalperspectivesintriguedJohnson,he wasmoreinterestedintakingapositionagainstthegovernmentandrevisingthecanonicalhistoriographythathadallowednationalmourning toobscurenationalmiscarriagesofjustice.CookalsowarnedJohnsonof theperilsofsympathizingwithamanconvicted,howeverunjustly,ofthe president’smurder:“IfapictureistobemadeinwhichMuddistobeglorifiedasahero-martyr,extraordinarycareshouldbetakenintheediting ofthescriptorfilmtoavoidthechargeofdistortingknownhistoricalfacts inacaseofinvolvingtheassassinationofamostbelovedpresident.”Johnsonagreed,sympathizingwithbothZanuck’seffortstosidewithMudd andthepotentialrepercussionsofchallengingLincoln’slegacy.Initially heaccomplishedthisbycreatinganelaborateforewordstressingthedefeatedSouth’sgrimexpectationsandtheeffortsofLincoln,the“greatand generousconqueror.”16 For the first time since Abraham Lincoln six years earlier, Lincoln wouldplaymorethananationalcameo.EvenmoreuniquewasZanuck andJohnson’sdecisiontoconfronttheconsequencesofhisbrokenpostwarlegacy.Thisproductionalsotaughtthemtheadvantagesofcreating awell-researchedoriginalscreenplay.Althoughresearchlibrarieswerea necessarypartofmostmajorstudios’productionoffices,itwasonlywhen a screenwriter was faced with an “original story” that he or she had to dependonthelibrary’sresourcestocreateadramaticbutreasonablyaccurateandintelligentuseofhistory.Zanuckalsoknewthatbyassigning Johnson,whowasfromGeorgia,towritethescript,hewascapitalizing onthewriter’szealtoexonerateapersecutedsoutherner.Johnson’sthor-
TheLivesandDeathsofAbrahamLincoln 173
oughresearchpracticesandwillingnesstoconfrontaneglectedandcontroversialhistoricaltopicrepresentedahighpointintheconstructionof historical film scripts. With The Prisoner of Shark Island’s success as a prestigepicture,Johnsonhadprovedtotheheadofthestudiothatwritten craftsmanshippaidoff. Inthenextfewyears,Zanuckreturnedtohistoricalsubjectsandincreasinglytobiopics,suchastheMcKinleyassassinationthrillerThisIs MyAffair(1937),whichtoldtheobscurestoryofanavalofficerhiredby McKinley to infiltrate a crime ring connected to high government officials.17However,thesefilmstendedtocelebratemoretraditional,HoratioAlgerheroes,suchasIrvingBerlin(Alexander’sRagtimeBand,1938) andAlexanderGrahamBell(TheStoryofAlexanderGrahamBell,1939). Yetashisconferencenotesontheseprojectsdemonstrate,Zanuckoften allowed himself to slip into a formulaic idea of biography: the story of the great man struggling against society’s myopia or outright hostility.18 Itwouldtakeanothersouthernscreenwriter,anotheroriginalhistorical screenplay,andanotherunconventionalapproachtotheLincolnmythto honehisformercriticaledge. By 1938, Zanuck’s growing interest in biographical-historical filmmakingledhimtoconsiderthecommercialpossibilitiesofascreenlife ofLincoln.Atthattime,hewasoverseeingthefinalstagesofTheStory ofAlexanderGrahamBellandlongedtoescapefromit.Hislatestforay intohistorywasbecominganincreasingsourceofirritation.Thefilmhad developedfromTwentiethCentury–FoxhackwriterRayHarris’slifelong interestinBell.Harris,nodoubtrecognizingZanuck’stasteforAmerican history,wroteawell-researchedtreatmentofBell’slifefromhisearlydays inEdinburgh,hisresearchandteachingofelocution,andhis“accidental” discoveryofthetelephone.KennethMacgowan,aformerRKOproducer whohadhandledmanyperiodfilms,includingLittleWomen,supervised Harris’swork.19ButthewriteroftenannoyedZanuckwithhisdidacticism andapersistentconcentrationonBell’selocutionstudies,whichrendered hisdiscoveryofthetelephoneincidental.Zanuckhadotherideas.Ashe wrotetoHarrisinMay1938,“OurmaindramaliesinBell’sfightagainst theworldtoconvincethemhehadsomethinggreat,thentoprotecthis ownership....Despitethefactthatelocutionwastherageatthetime, castingaleadingmanoftodayasanout-and-outelocutionenthusiastis likeaskingTyronePowertowearlaceonhisunderdrawers.”20 Late in the summer, Zanuck assigned Lamar Trotti to polish the script. Trotti had come to Hollywood several years earlier as Dudley Nichols’swritingpartner,andlikeNunnallyJohnson, Trotti knew how
174 CivilWarandReconstruction
tohandleZanuckwhentheproducerwasannoyed.HeagreedwithZanuck that the best character films had stories that showed the protagoniststrugglingagainsttheoddsforsomethinggreat.However,hedidlike Harris’shistoricaltouches.21ForTrotti,thehistoricalcontentwassimply themosteffectivepartofthescript,andbytheendoftheday,Trottihad convincedZanuckthatthemajorproblemwiththescriptwasalackof historicalspecificityratherthanasurfeit.Zanucknowfeltthat“wehave departedtoofarfromthetruecharacterandeventsofBell’slife”andthat “ourscripthadbeensimplifieddowntoa‘successstory’and‘boymeets girl.’”Macgowanmusthavebeendumbfoundedbythisabruptreversal ofjudgment,butTrottihadsucceededinturningtheproducerpartially awayfromhisgrowingtendencytostreamlinehistoryintosuccessstories. Hebegantofavoranelaborateforewordandevenanonlinearformof narratingBell’slife,andthenewscriptcontainedabriefprologueinthe 1910sshowingWatsonandBellmakingthefirsttranscontinentalphone call.Trottilikedtoexperimentwithhistoricalfilmmaking,andhenow hadZanuckasanally.ButthewriterhadanotherreasonforhandlingZanucksocarefully:Trottihadjustfinishedanoutlineandtreatmentbased ontheprepresidentialcareerofAbrahamLincoln.Macgowanhadbeen impressedbytheidea,andheremindedZanuckofTrotti’sgoodrecordat Foxandhisreadinesstohandleanoriginalscreenplay.22Zanuckagreed.
YoungMr.LincolnandtheBurdenofAmericanFilmHistory ZanuckcommittedhimselftotheLincolnstoryinNovember1938.AlthoughLincolnhadappearedinmanyHollywoodfilms,includingsome Twentieth Century–Fox releases, there had been no biography since Griffith’sill-fatedAbrahamLincoln.Hismostrecentappearancewasin MGM’s adaptation of Bradbury Foote’s Of Human Hearts (1938), anotherruralfamilymelodramawithLincolninthecast.Ittellsthestory ofayoungboy,broughtupinpovertyintheantebellumMidwest,who is ashamed of his rube preacher father and the family’s hand-to-mouth existence. With the help of his mother’s sacrifices, he escapes, eventually becoming an army surgeon in Washington. Over the years, he has losttouchwithhismother,andshewritestoPresidentLincoln,hoping thathewillbeabletolocatehersoninthearmy.Thepresidentnaturally finds,chastises,andreuniteshimwithhismother.ItwasanothersympatheticappropriationofGriffith’s“GreatHeart”mythand,unlikemany historicalappearancesbyLincolnin1930sfilms,wasmanagedwithout anyengagementwiththeprojectedtextofCivilWarhistory.Incontrast,
TheLivesandDeathsofAbrahamLincoln 175
Robert Sherwood’s new Broadway play, Abe Lincoln in Illinois (1938), embodiedtheself-consciousprestigethatMGM’sfilmlackedandwasa hugesuccess.ZanucksensedthebankabilityofTrotti’soriginalstoryand sent him to Washington in November to ascertain whether Sherwood could sue for plagiarism. Trotti quickly returned, utterly delighted that Sherwood’splaywassodifferentintoneandapproachfromhisscript.23 Zanuckhurriedintoproduction;heknewthateventuallySherwood wouldbringhisplaywestforafilmtreatment.Hewatchedcuriouslyas Warner Brothers produced a short color feature, Lincoln in the White House(1939).TheshortwasoneofaseriesofeducationalfilmsonAmericanhistoryplannedbyGordon“Holly”Hollingsheadandoverseenby themeticulousdirectorofthestudio’sresearchdepartment,HermanLissauer.Usingvoice-of-Godnarration,excerptsofLincoln’sspeeches,and judiciouslyconstructedscenesbetweenLincolnandWilliamSeward,the film narrates the heroic president’s life from his first inaugural address on 4 March 1861, to his recitation of the Gettysburg Address in 1863. Warner Brothers’ research department used only the most expurgated sourcesfortheirconstructionofLincoln,includingIdaTarbell’sandJohn Drinkwater’sbiographies.24Afterall,asthenarratorinstructedhisaudience,Lincolnwasthe“saviorofhiscountry,”notafigurestrugglingwith historicalevents.Zanuckbreathedagain.Theshorteducationalfilmonly smoothedthewayforhishistoricalfeature.LincolnintheWhiteHouse, Sherwood’sAbeLincolninIllinois,andE.P.Conkle’scontemporaneous ProloguetoGlory(producedin1938bytheFederalTheaterinNewYork) representedanationallyestablishedandreveredhero;YoungMr.Lincoln wouldbeunique. Years before, as an Atlanta reporter, Trotti had covered a trial that remindedhimofoneofLincoln’sdefensetrials.AlthoughTrottiacknowledged the impact of the Georgia trial, he contended that his historical sourcewasLincoln’sdefenseofWilliam“Duff”Armstrongformurderin 1858.25On29August1857,atareligiouscampmeetinginVirginGrove nearOldSalem,JamesNorrisandDuffArmstronggotintoabrawlwith James Metzker. Later that night, Metzker collapsed, supposedly dying fromtheeffectsoftheassault.Norriswastriedseparatelyandconvicted of manslaughter in October, but Hannah Armstrong went to Lincoln’s lawofficesinSpringfieldandpleadedwithhimtodefendherson.Years before,theArmstrongshadprovidedLincolnwithahomeinNewSalem, and Lincoln readily agreed to help his old friends. The trial was held inthespringof1858,andLincoln’ssuperbdefenseconvincedthejury toacquitArmstrong.LamarTrotti’sscriptandJohnFord’sfilmchanged
176 CivilWarandReconstruction
theArmstrongfamilynametoClay,madethetwodefendantsbrothers, stagedthe“killing”atanIndependenceDaycelebration,anddatedthe trialseveralyearsearlierinLincoln’slawcareer.26 IfTrottiwassofamiliarwithLincoln’scareer,whydidhechangethe name of the Armstrong family and deliberately obscure the exact date ofthetrial?FilmhistorianshavelongconsideredTrotti’sevidentlackof historicalexactituderegardingthenarrative’smostdramaticevent—the murder trial—as just another example of Hollywood’s manipulation of historyintheinterestofatritenarrative.27Bothhistoriansandfilmscholarshaveconcurredthat,aswithanyotherHollywoodmyth,thefilmmakersreproducedanuncomplicated,heroictemplate,asymbolicLincoln roughlycorrectinitsmonumentaloutlines.In1970Cahiersducinéma evenassertedthatYoungMr.Lincoln’ssubjectwasnotLincoln’syouth butrather“thereformationofthehistoricalfigureofLincolnonthelevel ofmythandtheeternal.”Theeditorsinsistedthatthefilm’spremise,the murder trial, was fictitious and that the only background for it was the cycleofDepression-eraHollywoodfilmswiththemesoflynchingandlegality.28Accordingtoscholarlyconvention,YoungMr.Lincolnpossessed nodeliberateperspectiveonLincolnorAmericanhistorybecause,like so many other classical Hollywood films, it simply reflected prevailing culturalassumptionsandideology. Filmmakersandcriticsin1939hadanotherperspective.Writingabout JesseJamesin1939,KateCameroncreditedZanuckwithinauguratinga new and sophisticated cycle of American historical films that included ThePrisonerofSharkIsland,Ramona,andInOldChicago(1938).29His investmentinTrotti’sscreenplaywaspartofthiscommitmenttoAmericanhistory.Trotti’sLincolnscriptwasuniquebecauseitwasnotbased on the writer’s adaptation of one particular Lincoln biography, historicalnovel,orSaturdayEveningPostpotboiler,norwasitwrittenwiththe helpofanotherstudiowriter.Instead,likeanyotherwrittenbiographyor history,YoungMr.Lincolnwasanoriginalscreenplay based on Trotti’s extensiveknowledgeofandresearchonLincoln’slife.Onthisproject, Trottiworkedmoreasatraditionalhistorianthanasascreenwriter,evaluatingtheworkofothersratherthanmerelyadaptingit.Longbeforefilmingcommenced,ZanuckandFordwereenthusiasticabouttheproject, largelybecausetheybothadmiredTrotti’sdualhistoricalandscreenwritingcapabilities.30ThecinematicalterationoftheArmstrongtrialrepresentedmorethanjustHollywood’sregressiontosimplifiedmyth.Trotti liberatedthefilmfrombeingareflectionofthemostrecenttreatmentof Lincoln’sprepresidentialyears,theassertivelyhistoricalplayAbeLincoln
TheLivesandDeathsofAbrahamLincoln 177
inIllinois;orthepastHollywoodeulogies,TheDramaticLifeofAbraham LincolnandGriffith’sAbrahamLincoln;orthestandardLincolncameos ofthelasttenyears.Instead,heexploredthedifferencebetweenthereal, “historical”LincolnandthemythinAmericanconsciousness.
QuestioningHistoriographyin1939 Following the credits, the first and final stanzas of contemporary poet RosemaryBenét’s“NancyHanks”appear.31Thelinesareengravedasif partofamarblemonumentoragravestoneepitaph: IfNancyHanks Camebackasaghost Seekingnews Ofwhatshelovedmost, She’saskfirst, “Where’smyson? What’shappenedtoAbe? What’shedone?[quickdissolve] Youwouldn’tknow Aboutmyson? Didhegrowtall? Didhehavefun? Didhelearntoread? Didhegettotown? Doyouknowhisname? Didhegeton?”
Trotti’sforewordforYoung Mr.Lincoln(1939).
178 CivilWarandReconstruction
YoungMr.Lincoln’sprologuebeginswiththemonumentalLincoln,the manwhoselifeisengravedinstone,yetthequestionsposedbythepoem aresimple,humanonesabout“Abe.”Thepoemwasoriginallypartofa children’spoetryanthologyofgreatAmericans.Itsinclusionasthefilm’s introductorytitleestablishesacontrastbetweenthehumanandmonumentalLincolnthatdominatesthenarrative.Ithasbeenarguedthatthis opening sequence is crucial in establishing the film’s mythic structure, sincethequestionsposedinthepoemgeneratesimplebinaryoppositions orstrictyesornoanswersratherthanmorecomplicated,criticalhistorical arguments.32Buthowarethequestionsvisuallypresented?Thepoemis engravedinmarble;thequeries,thissuggests,arealreadypartofhistory. However,itissignificantthatonlythequestionsareshown;theanswers maybetoolong,tooambivalent,ortoounsettledbyhistorianstobeset instone.Lincoln’slifeandhischaracterareperhapstoocomplextobe answeredwithaterseyesorno.Thequestionsmaybeincisedinourhistoricalmemory,buttheanswersareelusive,perhapsonlypartiallyevident inthefilm. Since Cimarron’s full-scale deployment of text in 1931, projected historiographyhadbecomeoneoftheAmericanhistoricalcycle’smost recognizableattributes.Yet,althoughmanyfilmsalignedthemselveswith thediscourseoftraditionalhistory,textforewordswereincreasinglyused toconfinethefilmnarrativewithinonedominanthistoricalperspective. YoungMr.Lincoln’sprologueisratherunusual.Itistemptingtoattribute thisinnovativeandcomplexuseoftexttoJohnFord,sincenosuchforewordappearsinYoungMr.Lincolnuntiltherevisedfinalscript.33Ford, however,hadrecentlyvetoedaforewordforStagecoachwrittenbyDudleyNichols.34ItseemsmorelikelythatZanuckandTrottidevelopedthe ideaofatextforewordinthelaterstagesofproduction.YetFord’sdirectionandfilmingofHenryFondaasLincolncarrythetext’sinitialcontrast betweenthehumanandthemonumental,the“real”andtheconstructed figure,throughoutthefilmnarrative. In1939itwashighlyunusualforanyLincoln“monument”tobeso unadornedandevententativeinitsengravedrhetoric.Throughouttheinterwarera,Lincolnwasthesubjectofcountlessheroicstatuescommemoratingthevariousstagesofhiscareer,fromtheyounglawyerinUrbana, Illinois(1927),tohisheadonMountRushmore,completedin1937.The statuaryhadmultipliedtosuchproportionsthatin1932FranklinMeade publishedastudyoftheimageryfrom1865onward.35ButHenryFonda’s Lincolndoesnotbelongtoanysolemniconicstudy.ThroughoutYoung Mr. Lincoln, the young lawyer arranges and rearranges his lanky body
TheLivesandDeathsofAbrahamLincoln 179
intoamorecomfortableslouch.Heisshyandunpolished.Inthecourtroom,hefidgets,oftenstrikingaposefleetinglyreminiscentoftheiconic Lincoln,andthenuncomfortablyshiftinghisposition.Eveninthefilm’s finalsequence,Lincolnwalksaloneupahillandoutoftheframewhile thecameralingersforseveralsecondsontheemptylandscapebeforeseveringthelongtakewithashotofLincoln’sprofileontheLincolnMemorialandthenalow-anglefrontalviewofthestatue.Thecontrastbetween theyoung,livingLincolntotheold,chiseledmonumentisuncomfortable,ifnotshocking. The opening shots of the engraved monument are followed by the firstsequenceinLincoln’syouthannouncedbythetitle,“NewSalem, Ill.1832.”IthasbeensuggestedthatthedecisiontofilmLincoln’searly years enabled Trotti and Ford to show the predetermined greatness of anAmericanhero.36Theconceptofthefullyformedheroimpliesthat historical fact is subservient to the promotion of a reverent view of the protagonistandhisfuturegreatness.Onemightspeculatethatastoryof Lincoln’syouthwouldencourageembellishment,sincehisNewSalem andSpringfieldyearslackedthedocumenteddetailsofhislaterpolitical life. However, Lincoln’s youth was well chronicled, analyzed, and critiquedbyhistoriansduringtheinterwarperiod.37In1936LincolnhistorianPaulAnglerepublishedanannotatedversionofWilliamHerndon’s definitivepersonalbiography,correctingtheauthor’sexaggerationsand supplementingthetextwithnewresearchdiscoveries.38 Both Trotti’s script and the film begin with Lincoln’s first electoral speech,duringhisrunforthelegislaturein1832,ratherthanwithHoward Estabrook’s original story adaptation written in 1935, which begins withLincolnsplittingrailsinfrontofhisfamilycabin.39Estabrook’sscript andplannedopeningimagesbelongtothestandardversionofLincoln filmmaking. The western frontier or folklore images of the log cabin and the youth struggling to read by the firelight figure prominently in Griffith’s1930biopic,aswellasSherwood’s1938play.Lincoln’sobscure birthandparentagehadoccupiedthepublicsincehispresidencyand,as LincolnhistorianDavidDonaldnoted,properlybelongtotherealmof themythichero.40Instead,YoungMr.Lincolnbeginswithaseminaland documentedmomentintheknownlifeofLincoln. BombasticpoliticianJohnT.StuartattacksPresidentAndrewJackson’spoliciesfromarusticstorefrontandthenintroducesalocalmemberofthe“incorruptible”WhigParty.Lincoln,sittingalone,rises,fiddles with his hands rather nervously, and then begins his speech in a high, midwesterndrawl.41Hedeclareshispoliticalprinciples,whichareexact
180 CivilWarandReconstruction
Anuncertainhero’s firstspeech. (YoungMr.Lincoln)
intonationsoftheHenryClayplatform(hissupportofaNationalBank, internalimprovements,andhighprotectivetariffs),butheindividualizes thembyremarking,“Mypoliticsareshortandsweet,liketheoldwoman’s dance.”ThisisadirectquotationofLincoln’soft-citedfirststumpspeech in 1832, as documented by biographer William Herndon.42 Trotti and FordchosetobegintheirfilmwithamomentinLincoln’scareerthatwas eitheradocumentedoccurrence(accordingtoHerndon)oranoutright fabrication(accordingtooneofLincoln’sotherbiographers).Although the lingering low-angle close-up and Fonda’s grave demeanor resonate withtheemblematicCivilWarleader,thisisayoung,unknownLincoln, acallowyoungmanwhosepoliticalprinciplesarestilldeveloping.Fonda’snervousmomentsbeforehebeginshisspeech,hisfumblinghands andbaffledsmile,re-createHerndon’sowndescriptionofthecandidate’s “awkwardness,sensitiveness,anddiffidence”beforeaspeech.43 HistorianDavidDonaldhaswrittenthatitwouldbeamistaketoview Herndon’smorehuman,imperfectportraitofLincolnasmorerealistic orhistoricallyaccuratethantheidealizedbiographiesofHolland,Hays, andTarbell.44AccordingtoDonald,both“schools”ofbiographycreated mythological portraits of Lincoln as the frontier hero and the nation’s patronsaint.YetinbeginningYoungMr.LincolnwithaneventfirstincludedinHerndon’sbiography,Trottiwasnotattemptingtoreproduce Herndon’sLincoln.Rather,heembeddedHerndon’sownrecordedevents withinafilmnarrativethatdistanceditselffromthestructuraltrappings oftraditionalbiopics.Inreturningtoalittle-knownperiodinLincoln’s life,YoungMr.Lincolndeliberatelyconfrontednationalhistoryandmyth
TheLivesandDeathsofAbrahamLincoln 181
withitsownobscurities.Thefilmtookaimatthemostinsurmountable problemsinLincolnhistoriography:whetherhistorianswerecapableof separatingthereal,historicalLincolnfromthemythichero,orwhether thehistoryitselfwaspartofthemythicfoundation.45 ThetwomostinfluentialbiographiesofLincolnwrittenbyTrotti’sgenerationwereCarlSandburg’sThePrairieYears(1926)andSenatorAlbert J.Beveridge’sAbrahamLincoln(1928).46YoungMr.Lincolnsharesboth structuralandstylisticqualitieswiththebiographies.Allthreebreaktheir narrativesbeforeLincoln’spresidentialcareerbegins.Sandburg’spoetic sensibilityandunderstandingofLincoln’swesternfrontierbackgroundis similartoFord’s,andhisbiographywasinstantlyaccessibleandpopular withthegeneralpublic.47However,Sandburgwasnotinterestedinthe relativeimportanceandcomplexityofLincoln’smythicalandhistorical identities.Beveridge,incontrast,pleasedcriticsandacademichistorians withhiscommandofhistoricalevidenceandfootnoting.AlthoughBeveridgesharedSandburg’sandthefilmmakers’penchantforhumanizing Lincoln,hehadnopatiencewithidealizedcharacterizations,andhisbiographymentionsLincoln’slaziness,slowness,anduncouthdemeanor.48 Theseimperfectionswereunearthedandanalyzednottodebunkanationalherobutrathertoseparatehistoryfromlegend.Stillotherhistorians inquiredintoLincolnmythsduringthelate1920sand1930s.RoyBasler focusedonthedifferencesbetweenLincolnlegendandhistoryandtheir changingperspectivesinpopularbiographyandliterature. YoungMr.LincolnconspicuouslyavoidsLincoln’smajorclaimtohistoricalattentionandonethatpreoccupiedtheothertwoLincolnfilms of1939:hispresidentialleadershipduringtheCivilWarandhisrolein endingslavery.Thirtyyearslater,Cahiersducinémaattributedthisomissiontothefilm’soverarching,mythic“Hollywood”discourse,adiscourse intentontherepressionofconflict.49Yetthefilmmakers’uniquedecision toavoiddirectreferencetoLincoln’swell-documentedbuthopelesslyheroicizedCivilWaradministrationmayinsteademphasizethecontradictiontheyperceivedbetweenthehistoricalandthemythical,therealand themonumentalLincoln.AfilmabouttheCivilWarLincoln,however toutedasahistoricalfilmandsupplementedwithdocumentation,would necessarilybelinkedtowartimeheroicsandhisapotheosisfollowingthe assassination.ThisLincolnisinnatelythemythichero.Butachanging, youthful protagonist undoubtedly gave Trotti and Ford distance from America’snational,emotionalinvestmentintheiconicLincoln. Fromahistoricalstandpoint,however,youngLincoln’sunexpressed opiniononslaverywasalsoanaccurateportrayalofLincoln’sknownpo-
182 CivilWarandReconstruction
liticalconvictionsatthattime.50Lincoln’sowndocumentedopinionof slaveryyearslaterwasthatofacarefulpoliticianratherthanthatofthe GreatEmancipator.51Onlyin1862didLincolndecidetomaketheCivil WaranissueofslaverybyannouncingtheEmancipationProclamation. Eventhen,ashewroteinafamousopenlettertoHoraceGreeleyin1862, politicalratherthanpersonalconvictionsdeterminedhisdecision:“My paramountobjectinthisstruggleistosavetheUnion,andisnoteitherto saveordestroyslavery.IfIcouldsavetheUnionwithoutfreeinganyslave Iwoulddoit,andifIcouldsaveitbyfreeingalltheslavesIwoulddoit, andifIcouldsaveitbyfreeingsomeandleavingothersaloneIwould alsodothat.WhatIdoaboutslavery,andthecoloredraceIdobecauseI believeithelpstosavetheUnion.”52 Duringthe1930sLincoln’sstatusastheGreatEmancipatorwasfar moreprevalentinforeigncountriesthanintheUnitedStates,wherehe was regarded primarily as the man who saved the Union.53 Following theleadofCharlesandMaryBeardinTheRiseofAmericanCivilization (1927),professionalhistoriansfocusedlessonslaveryastheprimarycause of the Civil War than on the economic and cultural divisions between theNorthandSouth.AnymentionofslaveryinLincoln’sopeningaddressandthereafterinthefilmwouldnotbelongtoahistoricalportrait. It would be an obvious and heavy-handed attempt to show the young Lincolnasthecompositehero,fullyformedpoliticallyandhistorically and the embodiment of the Lincoln myth. Ironically, when Estabrook plannedabiographyofLincolnin1935,hisadaptationemphasizedLincoln’s role as the Great Emancipator; he acknowledged that his script wasnotboundbyquestionsofhistorybutwouldinsteadbea“dramatic” narrative.54Estabrookevenwantedtokeeptheword“Lincoln”outofthe filmtitle,fearingthatitseducationalimplicationswouldscareaudiences away.Severalyearslater,TwentiethCentury–Fox’sDarrylF.ZanuckdismissedEstabrook’sconcernsanddiscardedhisversioninfavorofTrotti’s script.
MultipleViewsofthePast YoungMr.LincolnalludedtoLincoln’sfutureCivilWarpresidencywithoutpresentingLincolnasaprescient,mythichero.TrottiandFord’sLincolnislearning,changing,growing.Hismaturepoliticalprinciplesareyet unknown.ComparedwithWilliamSewardandStephenDouglas,much lesswasknownaboutLincoln’spoliticalcommitmentspriorto1861.AlthoughhisfameddebateswithDouglasin1858madehimknownasan
TheLivesandDeathsofAbrahamLincoln 183
antislavery but moderate Whig, according to historian William E. Baringer(acontemporaryofTrotti,Ford,andZanuck),itwasLincoln’sstatus asapoliticaldarkhorsethatenabledhimtobenominated.55Byleaving Lincoln’s political makeup somewhat ambiguous, the filmmakers were abletosuggestLincoln’sfuturepoliticalpowerwithoutturninghiminto themythiccompositehero. At one point in the narrative, Trotti and Ford focus specifically on Lincoln’sdevelopmentofmoral,legal,andpoliticalprinciples.Lincoln lies by the Sangamon River in New Salem reading from Blackstone’s Commentaries:“‘Therighttoacquireandholdproperty...therightto lifeandreputation...andthewrongsareaviolationofthoserights.’... That’sallthereistoit—rightandwrong.”Thisstudysessionbytheriver references a passage from Herndon’s biography that describes Lincoln readingbytheriverwithhisfeetagainstatreetrunk.56Trottimayhave imaginedLincoln’sthoughtsashestudied,butthispassageisnotsimply afolksyfabricationwritteninthesimplebinarylanguageofmyth.Here isaconstructedmomentthatalludestomatterscentraltoLincolnhistory. His great constitutional struggle with the southern states in 1860 wasmotivatedbytheSouth’sbeliefthattheConstitutionandthetenets ofrepublicanlibertysanctionedtheprotectionofprivateproperty.Since slaves were defined as property, slavery was therefore protected by the Constitution.Lincoln’ssummation,“That’sallthereistoit—rightand wrong,”functionsonseverallevels.Lincolnmayseeonlyrightandwrong inreadingBlackstone’sunwieldytome,buthewillrealizeinhisdefense of the Clays that sometimes things can be more ambiguous. He has a better handleonthetextofPoorRichard’sAlmanac. When he realizes theimportofthedocumentedmooncyclesinthishomelybook,young Lincolnsmiles,knowingthathehaswonthecase.Laterinhispolitical lifehewillunderstandthatrightandwrongarenotsonarrowlydefined. PittedagainstLincoln’sendingofslaveryaretheunconstitutionallengths hewenttointheEmancipationProclamation,attackingtheconceptof privateproperty.Butmostofall,thisshortconfrontationwithBlackstone demonstratesanalmostambivalentattitudetowardLincoln’sCivilWar policiesandvalues.Again,YoungMr.LincolnshowsLincolnlearningthe complexitiesoflawandofhistory,ratherthanmerelyproclaiminghisinnateliberalprinciples.ThispresentationofahistoricalprocessisTrotti’s owncreation;incontrast,Herndonandotherbiographersdepictedonly theresultofLincoln’sstudyratherthanhisstruggletoachieveanimperfectunderstandingofthelaw. Lincoln’sskillasamediatoristestedearlyafterhecomestoSpring-
184 CivilWarandReconstruction
Mastering Blackstone’s Commentaries and the common laws of Poor Richard’s Almanac.(YoungMr.Lincoln)
fieldasJohnT.Stuart’slawpartner.TrottiembedsLincoln’sattemptto reconcile two irate farmers in a larger allusion to the Civil War. Each manhasgrievances,Lincolnadmits.Oneowestheothermoney,andthe otherhasbeatenuphisdilatorydebtor.Lincolnignoresthefire-eatersto greatcomiceffectwhilehereadsthroughtheirstatementsofgrievance. Hetriestosettlethedisputemathematically,butwhenthetwoarestill atodds,heinsinuatesthathewillcracktheirtwoskullstogether.Historically,theconfrontationmaybeseenasamicrocosmfor1930shistorians’ explanationsofthecausesoftheCivilWar—economictroubles,wounded pride, and retaliation. Although Lincoln solves this dilemma in the filmthroughsubtleintimidation,hewas,ofcourse,historicallyunableto
TheLivesandDeathsofAbrahamLincoln 185
reconciletheNorthandtheSouthyearslater.Lincolnsuffersevenmore anguishasalawyerwhenherealizesthatitwouldnotbemorallyrightto forceMrs.Claytochoosewhichofhertwosonsisguiltyofmurder.Trotti depictsLincoln’smeetingswithhisclients,andastheyounglawyer’sunderstandingofthelawdeepens,hismorecomplexfutureconfrontations with war guilt hover over the narrative like uneasy ghosts. In the later stagesofwriting,Trotti,underthedirectionofZanuck,compoundedthe film’sreferencetotheCivilWarbystagingalengthyIndependenceDay celebrationfollowingLincoln’smorninginthelawoffice.57WhileLincolnwatchestheparadewiththerestofthetownsfolk,heisconspicuously thefirsttoremovehishatwhentheveteransfromtheRevolutionaryWar passby.Lincoln’srespectfortheveteransprefigureshisownroleashead ofthearmyduringtheCivilWar.Thisparade,thisprogressionintime, showsthelinkageoftheCivilWartoAmerica’sotherwarsandapoignant difference—Lincoln’ssoldierswouldbefightingtheirowncountrymen. Thefilmmakers’creationoftheIndependenceDaycelebrationsindicatesthattheywerecertainlynotattemptinganunimpeachabledocumentofLincoln’searlylife.Fordwasparticularlyindifferenttocreating a standard eulogy. Later in the day, Lincoln takes part in a tug-of-war, accordingtoTrotti’srevisedfinalscript,butinthefilm,FordhasLincoln cheatinordertowin.Hetieshisendoftheropetoawagon,slapsthe horse’srump,andcausestheopposingsidetobedraggedthroughamud puddle.Lincolnisnoidealrepresentativeofthelaw;thetug-of-warscene showsthatheisreadytocheatwhenhissideisindangeroflosing.Trotti andFordalsocreateanimperfectlawgiverwhoknowslittlecourtroom etiquette.TheirflawedheromighthavebeenareactiontohistorianPaul Angle’sresearchonLincoln’searlylegalcareer,whichrevealedthathe wasnotthemostastuteorpolishedlawyer.58However,therepresentation oftheyoungLincolnwasmoredirectlyinfluencedbythehumanizing andsometimecriticaltrendsinAmericanbiographyestablishedbySandburgandBeveridge. Recenthistorians’claimsthatYoungMr.Lincolnisladenwithundocumentedimages,suchasthoseoftheIndependenceDaycelebrations, andthatthefilmmakers’LincolnisasymboloftheAmericanspiritare valid,buttheyaredeliberatechoicesthatsupplementthefilm’shistorical elements.ThiscontrastsuggeststhatcertainHollywoodfilmmakersduringtheclassicaleraweregeneratinganewapproachtoAmericanhistoricalcinema.Trotti,Ford,andZanuckcreatedasenseofhistorythatdid notdependonreflectingortranscribingthestandardversionofthepast withthecarefularrangementofdatesanddocuments;rather,itattempted
186 CivilWarandReconstruction
tocomparetheconflictingsourcesofknowledgeaboutLincoln’slifeand image.ThisdoesnotmakeYoungMr.Lincolnanylessofahistoryfilm. During the past ten years, mainstream reformed, modernist historians may have responded with fear to what they perceived to be Young Mr. Lincoln’s collapsing of the boundaries between fact and fiction, history andideology,bydesignatingthefilm“popularhistory”ormyth.Yetupon its release, contemporary critics hailed Twentieth Century–Fox’s Young Mr.LincolnasalandmarkinAmericanhistoricalcinema.59TerryRamsaye,theelderstatesmanoffilmhistory,commentedintheMotionPictureHerald,“Thelikeofthispictureinthenatureofitsstoryconcepthas neverbeforebeenofferedoutsidetheartcinemas.”60AccordingtoRamsaye, Young Mr. Lincoln achieved something unique in historical filmmaking.ItdidnotmerelyrecordhistoricaleventsordocumentLincoln’s lifebutassumedtheaudience’sknowledgeandmovedbeyondtoamore subtle engagement with the past. Rather than unconsciously reflecting the mixture of myth and history associated with popular history, Young Mr. Lincoln was constructed to contrast the many Lincolns known in bothhistoryandmyth.Inmanyways,thefilmmakers’approachnotonly resonateswithBasler’sstudyofLincolnmythandhistorybutalsoseems toanticipatelate-twentieth-centuryhistorians’interestindemystifyingthe discoursesofhistory,memory,andculture. It isworthreturningtothefilm’sfinalsequence, for here the filmmakersrevealtheircontrastingunderstandingsofthedichotomybetween thehumanandthemonumental,thehistoricandthemythicLincoln. Onscreen,Lincolnhaswonthetrialandwalksaloneuptheroad.He walksoutoftheframe,andFord’scameraremainsfixedontheempty, raininglandscapeforseveralsecondsbeforeaquickdissolvetoaclose-up oftheLincolnMemorial.ThedecisivetransitionfromFonda’sLincolnto ashotoftheLincolnMemorialisadeliberatereminderofthedifference betweenthehuman,realLincolnandtheiconcreatedintheyearsafter hisdeath.Thetransitionfromhistorytomythisnotseamless. TrottiandZanuckinitiallysawthingsdifferently.Trotti’sendinginthe revisedfinalshootingscripthadLincolnactuallytalkingtoGodandbeing showntheconsequencesofhisfuture,hismarriage,theCivilWar,and hisassassination.61Zanucklatereliminatedthisover-the-top“mystictag.” AlthoughZanuckwascommittedtopreservingthefilm’sbroadhistorical integrity, he was not as interested in the nuances of Lincoln myth and history.InaJanuary1939conferencewithTrottiregardingthetemporary script,Zanuck,worriedaboutitsmeditativeandhistory-ladenpace,complained,“Weareinclinedtobenarrativeratherthandramaticforthefirst
TheLivesandDeathsofAbrahamLincoln 187
partofthestory.”HelatersuggestedratherdesperatelythatTrotticonsult anewbookofLincolnanecdotestoseeiftherewasanythingthatcould bedonetoenliventhescript.62Monthslater,havingexaminedthefilm’s rushes,hefeltthatFordsharedTrotti’salarmingtendenciesandappealed to the director to brighten the film’s mood and speed up the tempo.63 EvidentlyYoungMr.LincolnlackedthetraditionalheroicglamourassociatedwithTwentiethCentury–Fox’sotherDepression-erabiopics. Zanuck’sinsistenceonnarrativeinterestdidnotcompromisehisunderstandingofthecomplexitiesofcreatinganewLincolnbiography.Indeed, the book of anecdotes he recommended, undoubtedly Emanuel Hertz’sLincolnTalks,beginswithLincolncomplainingabouttherepeatedinaccuraciesofbiographersinterestedonlyinheroizingtheirsubjects attheexpenseofhistoricaltruth.64ThereissomeevidencethatZanuck wastheonemostdeeplyaffectedbyLincoln’scriticismofbiographers. InanearlyconferenceonTrotti’sscript,Zanuckhadsetforthhisinitial preferencefortrumpetingLincoln’sfutureheroicstatusinthefinalshots: “Lincolnridesoff... .AsLincolnridesalong,music swells in volume andfaintlysuperimposedoverscreenweseetheoutlineoftheLincoln Memorial. The scene of the young Lincoln riding along becomes less distinct—whiletheMemorialbecomesclearerandclearer,finallycompletely obliterating the other.”65 The finished film reveals that Zanuck changedhismind.AstheuncreditededitorofallofJohnFord’sproductionsatTwentiethCentury–Fox,theproducerdidaddtheevocative“BattleHymnoftheRepublic”totheopeningcreditsandfinale.However, hiseditingofYoungMr.LincolndeliberatelyavoidedbothTrotti’smythic meeting of deity and hero and his original prescribed natural transformation from living man to mythic icon. Instead, as Ford remembered yearslaterinaninterview,his“cutter”hadtheideatoshiftabruptlyfrom the rainy landscape to the statue, opting for a disconcerting contrast.66 AlthoughZanuck’searlystylisticadvicesuggeststhathesawhistoryand mythasnaturallyblendingandevenindistinguishableatthefilm’sconclusion,hisvisionforthepossibilitiesofhistoricalfilmchanged.Hisfinal markonthefilmseparatestherealfromthemonumentalLincolnwith alongviewofableak,rainylandscapethatreliesoncontrastandvisual disjuncture. Although the Abraham Lincoln articulated in Young Mr. Lincoln maybearesponsetotrendsincontemporaryLincolnhistoriography,the relativistexplorationofhistoricalalternatives,andthevicissitudesofhistoriography, the film is neither a historical text nor a simple reflection ofhistoriographictrends.Thenarrativeisnotchronologicalnor,strictly
188 CivilWarandReconstruction
speaking,adocumentedhistoricalevent.Itisnotconstructedasafilmed biographytobejudgedonitsabilitytoreplicatethechronologicaldetails ofthepast.UnlikeLincolnintheWhiteHouse,YoungMr.Lincolnmade noovertclaimstobeahistoricallyaccuratedocumentofAbrahamLincoln’slife.Itdoesnotgiveseriousexhortationstothecamera,itdoesnot usedocumentcutaways,photographicallusions,orbiographicalsources tobolsteritsreputationasahistoricalfilmandtojustifyitsscript.AsRamsayewrote,“Itisthepicture’spresumptionthatthespectatorreallyknows allaboutLincoln,andtoadegreeofknowingthatitwillcontributetothe implied dramatic intensity of the phrases so effectively sketched under JohnFord’smostartfuldirection.”67OthercriticsintheHollywoodcommunity, undoubtedly wearied by Robert Sherwood’s didactic patriotism echoing from the East Coast, appreciated Young Mr. Lincoln’s mature historicaloutlookandanarrativethatshowedayouthful,imperfectprotagonist.TheHollywoodReporteraddeditto“filmdom’sgrowinglibrary of historical works,” and Film Daily called it living history without the “mustinessorstodginess”attributedtoacademichistory.Publicityreleasesintradepapersemphasizedthefilm’suniqueperspective,“portraying little-knownincidentsinhisearlycareer”:“Pictures,statues,allofhistory haveshownhimastheGreatEmancipator!ButtherewasanotherLincoln ...ayoungman,knowntoeverybodyinthebackwoodstownofSpringfield,Ill.,ajackleglawyerwhosestrengthwaslegendandwitwasfamous. ...ItisthisotherLincoln...whosestoryhasneverbeentold...thatis showninthe20thCentury–Foxpicture,YOUNGMR.LINCOLN.”68 Young Lincoln, set off between two marble monuments invoking thecumulativerealandimaginedburdenofnationalmemoryandthe CivilWar,ispartofAmericanhistoryandmyth.WithZanuck’swatchful, sometimesapprehensive,butultimatelysupportivecollaboration,Trotti and Ford juxtaposed complexity with simplicity, the real man with the monumentalicon,andhistorywithmyth.Intheprocess,theygenerated anewformofAmericanhistoricalcinema,onethatmeditatedonmany Lincolnhistoriesandmyths,ratherthanrecordingoneuncontestedhumandocument.
ImitatingHistoriography YoungMr.Lincolnprovedthatabiographicalfilmdidnotneedtobea success story or a deification of a national hero. Ramsaye in particular clearlyhopedthatthefilm’svisualandhistoricaldiscoursewouldgenerateanewdevelopmentinAmericanhistoricalfilmmaking.YetYoungMr.
TheLivesandDeathsofAbrahamLincoln 189
LincolnlastedonlytwoshakyweeksatNewYorkCity’sRoxyTheatre,in spite of being “highly regarded” by critics and exhibitors. Competition withtheWorld’sFairthatmonthmayhavekilleditsNewYorkbox-office potential,butthefilmdid“surprisinglyweak”businessinallthekeycities.69Sherwood’smoretraditionalviewinAbeLincolninIllinois,released byRKOseveralmonthslater,faredonlyslightlybetterattheboxoffice, being eclipsed by Selznick’s Rebecca; MGM’s annual Clark Gable release,BoomTown;andeventhecolor-saturatedfrontierepicNorthwest Passage.70 Although Zanuck could afford an occasional artistic failure and continued to employ Trotti, the screenwriter never again attained suchcontroloveranoriginalwork.RKO’sgamblewithwritersandfancy scriptswasdebilitating;the$275,000feepaidtoSherwoodforthescreen rightstoAbeLincolninIllinoiswasonlythebeginningofthestudio’sred inkin1940.71 Although 1939–1940 audiences ignored both films, late-twentiethcentury historians traditionally preferred Sherwood’s film to Young Mr. Lincoln. Like Warner Brothers’ short educational feature, Abe Lincoln inIllinoismakesuseoficonicLincolnimages,continuingthetradition ofheroicized,cradle-to-gravebiopicsestablishedbyTheDramaticLifeof AbrahamLincolnandGriffith’sAbrahamLincoln.Sherwood’sfilmtakes LincolnfromhisrusticfamilyhearthtohisdeparturefortheWhiteHouse in 1861 in twelve anecdotal but chronological incidents, including his firsttripdowntheMississippiRivertoLouisiana(wherehemeetsAnn Rutledgeenroute);hisreturntoNewSalemasastorekeeper,electionofficial,andpostmaster;thedeathofRutledgeandhisfirstlegislativeterm; hiscourtshipbyMaryTodd;thecampaignforsenatorandthefameddebateswithDouglas;andhissuccessfulbidforthepresidency.Theevents aresequentiallyarrangedtopointdirectlytohiselection. Director John Cromwell filmed Sherwood’s play almost exactly as it was written. The few cinematic additions to the narrative reinforce Lincoln’siconicstatusandthedeliberateequationofthecinematicimagewithhistory.Inoneofthese,Lincolnisshownswearinganoathas anelectionofficialinNewSalem.Inasolemn-facedmediumclose-up, withhisrighthandraised,heintonesthepledge,evokinghisfuturepresidentialoath.UnlikethemoreyouthfulHenryFonda,RaymondMassey moves through his role at a slower pace, striking thoughtful poses and lingeringportentouslybeforethecamera.Atonepointshortlybeforethe presidentialelection,heposesforaphotographicportraitwithhisfamily. Seatedwithhishandsonhiskneesandwithapronouncedstoop,heuncannilyresembleshisfutureLincolnMemoriallikeness.Theequationof
190 CivilWarandReconstruction
RaymondMassey’s swearingin. (AbeLincolninIllinois)
photographicimageswiththefilm’shistoricalaccuracyculminateswhen alanternslide,aprecursorofthemotionpictureapparatus,displaysLincoln’simageandreportshispresidentialvictorytoacheeringSpringfield crowd.The1860and1940“cameras”arefunctioningtogether,producingthesameirrefutablehistoryofLincoln’slife. The implications of Abe Lincoln in Illinois as a photographic document continued outside the boundaries of the film narrative. A short historyofLincoln’slifefrom1830to1865,publishedin1940,roughly followsthechronologicalformatofSherwood’splay.Theslimbiography isillustratednotwithLincoln’sphotographicportraitsbyMathewBrady andothersbutwithmotionpicturestillsfromAbeLincolninIllinois.72 The photographs show Raymond Massey sitting with his hands on his thighsorreadingathisdeskinposesreminiscentofBrady’sphotographs. ThecombinationofawrittenhistoryofLincoln’searlylifeandstillsfrom Sherwood and Cromwell’s film implies not only that Massey’s performanceasLincolnwasinterchangeablewiththerealLincolnbutalsothat Sherwood’splayperformsthesamefunctionasatraditionalbiography. Thiswasnothingnew.Fifteenyearsearlier,whenproducerA.L.Rockett releasedhisproductionofTheDramaticLifeofAbrahamLincoln,Grosset &DunlappublishedastudiobiographyofLincolnillustratedwithscenes fromthepicture.Rocketthadaratherflamboyantfaithinhisfilm’sability toportrayLincoln’slifewithhistoricalaccuracyandstillbesuccessfulat theboxoffice.YetinhisforewordtoA.M.R.Wright’sbiography,theproducerexpressedhisbeliefthatthehistoricalaccuracyofamotionpicture biographyofLincolnwasmeasuredinitscapacityforeulogy.73
TheLivesandDeathsofAbrahamLincoln 191
Sherwoodmayhavehadabitmorefinesse,buthealsoproclaimed hisplay’shistoricalaccuracyinafifty-pageaddendumtothepublished text entitled “The Substance of Abe Lincoln in Illinois.” He wrote that even though a playwright’s province is “feelings, not facts,” when writing about “the development of the extraordinary character of Abraham Lincoln,astrictregardfortheplaintruthismorethanobligatory;itis obviously desirable.”74 Yet in spite of his seemingly meticulous, sceneby-sceneanalysisoftheplay’shistoricalsourcesandhishinttolethistory “speakforitself,”AbeLincolninIllinoisisnopurehistoricaldocument unsulliedbycontemporarycontexts. WilliamHerndon,themostfamousbiographerofLincoln’sprepresidentialyears,appearsasaprincipalcharacterintheplay,butheactsless asalawpartnerandmorelikethescoldingchorusofaGreektragedyas heexhortsLincolntoliveuptohispoliticalprinciples.Despitehisadmirationforthefilm,evenLincolnfilmhistorianMarkReinhartnoted Sherwood’scuriousandhistoricallyunfoundedportrayalofanunambitiousLincoln.Inascenariothatextendsto1861,thepoliticalopportunist isnowheretobeseen.InthestageddebatebetweenLincolnandDouglas,Sherwoodborrowedandthenpiecedtogetherextensiveexcerptsfrom Lincoln’s “house divided” speech, private correspondence, and some debatingtexts,buthisself-describedobsessionwithdocumentsdoesnot acknowledgetheircompromisedhistoricalcontextintheplay.75Thisuse of“history”ispushedfartherinthefilmwhenLincolngivesaten-minute exhortationtothecamera,creatingtheillusionthatthefilmaudiencein early1940hasbeentransformedintoLincoln’santebellumpublic. Unlike Young Mr. Lincoln, Abe Lincoln in Illinois focuses on Lincoln’spersonalandpoliticalstanceonslavery.Sherwood’splaycontains extensivepassagesfromtheLincoln-Douglasdebates,andRKO(acting forSherwoodwhenthefilmwasinproduction)foughtJosephBreenand theProductionCodeAdministration(PCA)toretaintheplaywright’saccount of the debaters’ historic exchange about the future possibility of whiteseatingwith,sleepingwith,andmarryingblackAmericans.Initially, Breenbelievedthatthishistoricalinformationviolatedthemoralsclause of the Motion Picture Code (miscegenation) and would invite heavy censorshipnationallyandinternationally.BreenlaterdroppedthematterwhenRKOproducerMaxGordon(whohadalsoproducedtheplay) protestedthatthestudioandthePCAwouldinvitemassivecriticismif Lincoln’sandDouglas’sownwordswereeditedforcontent.76Yetthese allusions to Lincoln’s stance on slavery, which were directly avoided (orwhitewashed)byTrottiandFordinYoungMr.Lincoln,shouldnot
192 CivilWarandReconstruction
betakenasSherwood’sfusionofhistoryandliberalpolitics.Sherwood chose passages from Lincoln’s speeches on liberty that would appeal tothewhitemenoftheDepressionerawithoutentirelyalienatingthe black population. Perhaps the most astonishing and memorable line MasseyspeaksasLincolnisthisone:“AsanAmerican,Icansay—thank Godweliveunderasystembywhichmenhavetherighttostrike.”As historianAlfredJoneshaspointedout,thatspeechresonatedmorewith participants in the 1937 auto and steel workers’ strikes than with mid- VictorianAmericans.77 SherwoodreliedonHerndon’sbiographyformaterialonLincoln’s yearsinNewSalemandSpringfield,buthedwelledwiththegreatestrelishonHerndon’saccountofLincoln’srelationshipswithAnnRutledge andMaryTodd.78Lincoln’scommitmenttoRutledge,alwaysquestioned by professional historians but cherished in popular historical tradition, is central in Abe Lincoln in Illinois and is treated as a crucial event in Lincoln’slife.Sherwood’sLincolnkneelsbyAnn’sdeathbed,holdsher handasshedies,abandonsMaryToddonthedayoftheirwedding,and ramblesaroundthewoodsofNewSalemgrievingforAnn.Todd(Ruth Gordon)isportrayedasashrewishandunstablewomanandthebaneof Lincoln’sexistence.By1948,historianDavidDonaldhaddocumented the biases, embellishments, and inaccuracies of Herndon’s biography, particularly regarding the Rutledge and Todd episodes, but scholarship duringtheDepressionhadalsobeguntoquestionHerndon’sreliability.79 ForSherwood,however,theworkofHerndonandhisdisciple,Sandburg, wasthetemplateforthehistoricalcontentandstructureoftheplay. In spite of his obvious debt to Herndon, the playwright cited Carl Sandburg as his true historical source.80 Contemporary critics noticed theconnectionbetweentheplayandtheenormouslypopularAbraham Lincoln:ThePrairieYears.81Ofcourse,Sandburg’stendencytocombinehistorywithtreasuredmythmadeSherwood’scitationofthepoet-biographer as an irrefutable historical source problematic, but it enabled him to moldamythicLincoln.Sherwood’sversionofLincoln’spre–CivilWar yearsworkedhandinglovewiththeRooseveltadministration’smanipulationofLincoln’simageduringtheDepressionera.82BothSherwoodand SandburgsawLincolnandRooseveltaspoliticaltwinswithcomparable presidentialstruggles.MasseywasaperfectmouthpieceforSherwood’s project.InaNewYorkTimesinterview,hecalledLincolnaNewDealer andclaimed,“IfyousubstitutetheworddictatorshipforthewordslaverythroughoutSherwood’sscript...itbecomeselectricwithmeaning for our time.”83 Sherwood corroborated Massey in March 1939 when
TheLivesandDeathsofAbrahamLincoln 193
theplaywrightannouncedthathewasallowinghisBroadwayplaytobe turnedintoafilmbecausetheinternationalsituationwastooprecarious forLincoln’sbeliefindemocracytogounheardonalargescale. Sherwood’sLincolnintonesthecreedofRoosevelt’s New Deal democracy. After Lincoln addresses his Springfield friends following his election,histraintoWashingtonpullsawayfromthedual1861and1940 audiences.Itsdestinationiswar,bloodshed,andassassination.AbeLincolninIllinoisannounceditsideologicalproject,andMasseyacknowledgedthatitsreadingofhistorywasactivelyinfluencedbytheauthor’s andaudience’sneedtosolvecontemporaryproblemssuchastheimpendingwarinEurope,butSherwoodinsistedontheuncompromisinghistoricalcontentofhisplay.84Yetonscreen,AbeLincolninIllinoismerely reproducesthestandardeulogyandpompoushistorylessonexpressedin Rockett’sandGriffith’searlierefforts.Aboveall,SherwoodandMassey’s Lincoln lacks the humanity, humor, and imperfection of the man portrayed by Herndon. Sherwood wanted his film, like his play, to be an impressive historical document, but it remains a document of the last antebellumdaysofthe1930s. Abe Lincoln in Illinois was part of a group of prestigious historical filmsmadeinlate1939and1940thatcapitalizedonLincoln’sarchetypal imageasaheroicnationalleaderandunifier,whilewhitewashinghisrole astheGreatEmancipator.LincolnjustifiedtheexpansionofthetranscontinentalrailroadinCecilB.DeMille’sUnionPacific(1939),andhis monumentinspiredmodern-dayhickpoliticianJeffersonSmithtofight governmentgraftinMr.SmithGoestoWashington(1939).HisoralnarrationframesWarnerBrothers’CivilWarwesternVirginiaCity(1940),and theeffectsofhispresidentialelectionloomoverthenarrativeofSantaFe Trail(1940).ButonlyinFrankCapra’sMr.SmithGoestoWashingtondo Lincoln’smarbleeffigyandengravedrhetorichaveanyexplicitimpacton contemporaryAmericans.InhisfirsttriptoWashington,newlyappointed SenatorSmithconcludeshistourofthecityattheLincolnMemorial.As ayoungboyreadsthesecondinauguraladdress,hisbespectacledgrandfather(himselfaboywhenLincolnwasassassinated)helpstheyoungster decipherthetext.Althoughhissightisfailing,Lincoln’stextisengraved intheoldman’sconsciousness.Anagingblackman,possiblybornaslave, approaches the towering script, looks upward silently, and removes his hat.Noonehasaccesstohispersonaltranslationofthetext,yetinone sense, the reflected equation of the free man and the founding text of racialequalityneedsnoelaboration.HerewasthepersonalLincolnconnection that Sherwood failed to create. In Capra’s film, Lincoln’s soul
194 CivilWarandReconstruction
and rhetoric are passed on from the last living generation to know his presidencyfirsthand.UnliketheremotemarblefiguresofGeorgeWashington,ThomasJefferson,andAlexanderHamilton(whichbeginSmith’s Washingtonmontage),Lincolnremainsavitalmemoryofthecountry’s oldestlivinggeneration. Onecouldmakeacasethatin1939and1940,Hollywoodcinema drewonLincoln’siconicpresencetoglorifytheAmericanpeople’ssurvivaloftheGreatDepressionandtopreparethemforthecomingofanother worldwar.Inanageofpoverty,Lincolnpersonifiedthehopethateven the poorest American could overcome adversity. In an age of political upheaval,Lincolnstoodasareminderthattyrannycouldbeovercome in the name of freedom. In an age of instability, Lincoln proved that Americawouldendure.Accordingtothisargument,anyHollywoodfilm aboutLincolnmadebetweentheDepressionandtheSecondWorldWar couldonlybeanationalistpanegyricforaclassicAmericanhero.Manyof themwerejustthis,regardlessoftheirself-conscioushistoricalpedigrees. BothLincolnintheWhiteHouseandAbeLincolninIllinois,alongwith countless other films, represent Lincoln in this celebratory mode. Occasionally,afilmemployedLincolntoprovokerevisionisthistoryandto pushtheboundariesofestablishedfilmhistoriography.YetThePrisoner of Shark Island’s national criticism and Young Mr. Lincoln’s analytical counterpointofquestions,doubts,andambivalenceweresoonobscured byplansforanotherwar.85
Part Four
Veterans of Different Wars
This page intentionally left blank
7
WarintheRoaringTwenties, 1932–1939 “Andit’schuckhimout,thebrute!Butit’ssaviorofhiscountrywhenthe gunsbegintoshoot.” —RudyardKipling,quotedinSamuelTaylorMoore, AmericaandtheWorldWar,1937 Hewasabigshot—once. —Kansas(TexasGuinan)inTheRoaringTwenties,1939
AlthoughCivilWarandwesternhistorieswoulddominateAmericanhistoricalproductionbytheendofthe1930s,thepopularfilmbiographies ofbootleggersTerryDruggan,FrankyLake,andAlCaponehadservedas asourceforHollywood’sfuturelivesofJesseJamesandGeorgeArmstrong Custer. Prompted to rework the prestige and historical iconography of AbrahamLincolnandCimarron,ironically,ScarfaceandThePublicEnemy’stwentieth-centurycontroversiespavedthewayforsafernineteenthcenturyblockbusters.HowardHughes’sandDarrylZanuck’swillingness totreatAlCaponeandothergangsterswiththesamehistoricaltoolsused tofilmAbrahamLincolnandAlexanderHamiltoncertainlyinflamedthe censorshipofthegangstercycle,butequallydisturbingtocontemporaries weretheseandotherfilms’referencestotheGreatWar,foreignconflict, andthetroublesomelivesofreturningveterans,soonknownas“forgotten men.”NotallveteranschosetheviolentanddisruptivepathofNailsMorton,buttherelationshipbetweenwarandcrimewasapopularhistorical 197
198 VeteransofDifferentWars
explanationforthepostwarera,andonethatwasincreasinglycensored in the 1930s. From 1932 to 1939, Hollywood’s depictions of the Great War,theimpoverishmentofthewarhero,andnationaldeclinerevealed frustratingbarriersbetweentheAmericancinema’sstruggleforhistorical prestigeandtheantagonismofcensorsandcritics.
PostwarFugitivesandForgottenMen RobertElliotBurnsbeganhisautobiographywiththewar:“Discharged from the army, after the World War, a broken man, I committed petty crimeinGeorgia,wascaught,convicted,sentencedtotenyearsonthe Georgiachaingang.”1Likemanyreturningveteransin1919,Burnshad expectedlifeinAmericatobeashehadleftitin1917,butitwasnot. Hisformerjobhadpaid$50perweek,butanoncombatanthadtaken it.Tryashemight,Burnscouldnotfindanotherthatpaidhimeven$20 perweek.Employerswereunsympathetic,andhegrewdespondent.His brotherVincentwrotethatbeingatthefrontforoverayearhadpermanentlymarkedRobertBurns.“Hewasnotwoundedexternallybuthewas mentallywounded—acasualty...atypicalshell-shockcase.”2Although thegovernmentmadesomeefforttohelpreturningsoldiersreadjust,pensionswereminuscule,fulldisabilitypensionswerefarfromadequateand hardtoget,andtheeducationalprogramsandjobnetworksthatwould be instituted after the Second World War did not exist. Vincent Burns feltthatthegovernmentandthepublichadabandoneditsveterans:“His country has rewarded him with indifference in his need, with flagrant neglect,withoutrightinjustice.”3 Inthecircumstances,itwasunderstandablethatRobertBurnswould turntocrime.NailsMortonandallegedlyAlCaponehadturnedbootleggingintoasuccessfullivelihood,butBurns’spostwarfatewasdifferent. HisattemptatpettytheftinGeorgianettedhimalengthyjailsentenceto beservedinachaingang.Withnomoney,nolawyer,andnopossibility ofanappeal,withlittlehopeandanunderstandablebitternesstowardthe Americanjudicialsystem,Burnsescaped,changedhisname,andeventuallybecameasuccessfulChicagobusinessmanbeforeauthoritiesrecognizedhimandforcedhimtoreturntoGeorgia.Now,favorablepress and a moneyed lawyer promised him a new trial, but Georgia officials incarceratedhimagain.Ignoredbyhiswealthyfriendsandtrappedina repressivejudicialsystem,heescapedasecondtime and published his harrowingautobiography,IAmaFugitivefromaGeorgiaChainGang. WarnerBrothersquicklysoughttherightstoBurns’sstoryand,bettingon
WarintheRoaringTwenties 199
hisneedforquickcashandanonymity,paidhim$12,500.4Thefilmwas partofZanuck’sprogramtomakestimulatingandhigh-profilepictures basedoncontemporaryevents,butitalsofitwithhishistoricalproductionsthatfocusedonthelivesofimportantorunusualAmericans. InspiteofthefactthatBurnsandhispostwarexperiencesmarkedthe deviantanddecliningcourseoftwentieth-centuryAmerica,Burnstruly believedthathewasanold-fashioned,upstanding,middle-classAmerican warhero,strugglingagainstthegovernmentandsocialinjustice.5Afterhis firstescape,hebecameaprominentmagazineeditorinChicago,andafterhisrecapture,manywealthyChicagoansandfriendswrotetoGeorgia authoritiestosecurehisrelease.ButGeorgia’sreactionwassummedup byafellowprisoner:“‘Youcan’teditanymagazineshere,Mr.AlCapone fromChicago.’”6Burnsfeltverystronglythatsouthernprejudiceagainst northern big-city dwellers affected his treatment. Burns had been born andraisednearNewYorkCityandhadredeemedhimselfinChicago,the country’stworichest,brashest,andmostraciallyandculturallydiversecities.Downsouth,thenewspaperscharacterizedhimasa“gunman”from NewYorkandahardenedcriminal,andprisonofficialstreatedhimlike anescapedslave.Indeed,Burnsindicted“Georgia’sviewpoint”andthe southernpenalsystemasevidenceofstill-thrivingslaveryanddescribed theharshbeatingsandevenmurdersofblackinmates.Burnswrote,“HistorywillaccountfortheirprejudiceagainstYankeesandNegroes,”andhe grimlyacknowledgedthatSherman’sMarchtotheSeahadasmuchtodo withhisbrutaltreatmentasdidhisresidenceinNewYorkandChicago.7 ButliketheSouth,Burnshadbeenmarkedbywaranddisillusionment. Hisautobiographyportrayedamanstrugglingtoescapefromthedebilitatingforcesofhistory. Fromtheoutset,ZanuckandhiswritersSheridanGibneyandBrown HolmesfollowedBurns’spremise—namely,thathewasapatrioticsolider betrayedbyhiscountryafterthewar.Theirdecisiontofilmtheinjustice andcorruptionoftheAmericanjudicialsystemandthepublic’sapathy towarditsveteranswasunprecedentedanddangerous.Thefilmmakers introduce Burns (renamed Allen) as a decorated U.S. serviceman, and theearlyscriptsopenontheparadegroundsinFrance,whereAllenreceives a medal. After this prologue, the narrative dissolves to America, whereAllenunsuccessfullyattemptstofindwork,buthisprewarjobhas beentaken.Hisex-bossandothershavespentthelastthreeyearsmakingmoney,andtheyhavelittlesympathyforhim.Inhisautobiography, Burnswasbitter,writing,“ThepromisesoftheYMCAsecretariesandall theother‘fountain-pensoldiers’whopromisedussomuchinthename
200 VeteransofDifferentWars
Trayfullofpawnedwar medals.(IAmaFugitive fromaChainGang)
ofnationandtheGovernmentjustbeforewe’dgointoactionturnedout to be the bunk.” He regretted even serving in the war and blamed the government. “Is this how my country rewards its volunteers—the men whowerereadyandwillingtosacrificelifeitselfthatdemocracymight notperish?”8Studiowriters,assistedbyBurns,9scriptedhisimpotentfury, andoneofthemostpowerfulsequencesshowshim,anunemployedveteran,seekingshelterandsleeponaparkbench.Afatcopforceshimout, andAllenlookseloquentlyfromhisswingingbillyclubtotheGreatWar memorialpartiallyobscuredbythecop’sbulk.Soonafter,hetriestopawn hiswarmedal,anotheremptysymbolofAmericanpatriotism.Thebroker staresathimgrimlyandwordlesslypullsoutatrayfullofsuchmedals.10 Afterreadingthesefirsttreatments,Zanuckretainedthescreenwriters’ searing visual prologue, which presented the disjunction between themarginalizedveteranandpostwarAmerica’seconomicboom.Buthe quicklyremovedthemoreovertcriticismsofprofiteeringAmericanbusinessmenandatfirstobjectedtothecopchasingAllenoutofthepark.11 Thisscenemayhavebeentooreminiscentofthegovernment-authorized pensionmassacreoutsidetheCapitolin1932,wherefuturegeneralDouglasMacArthurorderedhismentofireonpeacefullyprotesting,destitute veteransandtheirfamilies.12Instead,Zanuckaddedatextforewordtothe film,outlininginamemothathewantedBurns’sownwords,quotedfrom hisautobiography,toopenthe“truestory.”13Healsoplannedanumber ofnewspaperinsertstostructurallylinkthenarrativetocontemporaryhistory.14Undoubtedlyhopingtopreventlegalretaliation,thestudiosasked theReverendVincentBurnstoauthenticatethestory,justashehadsup-
WarintheRoaringTwenties 201
plied an impressive introduction to his brother’s autobiography. In the final script of the text foreword, Vincent Burns states that his brother, Robert,was“afugitivefromachaingang”andthat“thescenesinIAma FugitivefromaChainGangwhichdepictlifeinachaingangaretrueand authentic,beingbaseduponmybrother’sexperience.”15Studiopublicity emphasizedthefilm’shistoricalnature,andZanuckcompoundedthisby framingitasahistoricaldocument.Yetsoonafterthefilm’srelease,this textforewordmiredthestudioinlegaltrouble. Georgia sued Warner Brothers for its alleged “unfair depiction” of thestate’spenalsystem.Georgiaauthoritieswereparticularlyoffendedby VincentBurns’stextforewordandcriedthathisendorsementwasslanderous.16Warnerexecutivesweretreadingafineline.Ontheonehand, they had to insist on and prove I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang’s historical accuracy to escape the charge of slander; on the other hand, they had to distance themselves from Burns, who was still a convicted felon on the run. In fact, Burns, who had vainly hoped that the film’s impactwouldsecurehisfreedom,wasrecapturedshortlyafteritsgeneral release.In1938,whenthecaseagainstWarnerBrotherswasstillpending,writerSheridanGibneygaveadepositioninwhichhecitedallthe original penal code sources used in preproduction research as he was constructingthescript.Healsoclaimedinalettertothestudiothathe hadusedBurns’sbookonlyasadeparturepointforamoderndiscussion ofchaingangsandsocialpunishment.17WalterMacEwan,executiveassistanttoproducerHalWallis,evenassuredtheAtlantalawyersthatthe forewordhadbeendeletedfromallthe1932releaseprints.18Ofcourse, itwasaclumsylie,butthestudiowonthecaseinOctober1938,proving thehardwaythatanautobiographyorahistoricalaccountcannoteasily bechargedwithlibel. Despitethestudio’slatereffortstocamouflagethefilm’scontroversial historical basis, Fugitive was marketed and received as a true story of a down-and-outveteran.19Infact,despiteVariety’spredictionofthefailure ofthis“depressing”and“brutal”film,audienceswereattractedbyapress campaignthatfocusedonthefilm’sauthenticity.20Itwasanuncomfortablebuttimelyaccountofthecountry’sneglectandabuseofitswarheroes.Zanuck,encouragedbythefilm’scriticalsuccess,injectedanother referencetotheveteraninamuchdifferenttypeofHollywoodfilm:the musical.TheGoldDiggersof1933wasasequeltothesuccessfulbackstageDepressionmusical42ndStreet(1932).GoldDiggers,however,was notonlysetduringthepresentDepression;thestockmarketcrashandits aftermathwerescriptedasthesubjectsofthefilm’sfictionalstageproduc-
202 VeteransofDifferentWars
tion.WhenaBroadwayproducerdecidestostagebreadlinesratherthan a chorus line, his audience of chorus girls is dismayed. By 1933, these womenhadseentoomuchoftheDepression,bothoffstageandon.After all,thelastmusicalnumbertheyappearedin(andtheopeningnumber ofthefilm,“We’reintheMoney”)wasinterruptedmidwaybythepolice and angry bank agents. The film’s treatment of the Depression, both onstage and backstage, is offhand and tongue-in-cheek—at least until thefilm’sandthestagemusical’sfinalnumber,“MyForgottenMan.” Ratherthanendingonamajorhigh,liketheexuberant“42ndStreet” coda, Carol (Joan Blondell) concludes Gold Diggers singing as “The SpiritoftheDepression.”Sheisasomber-faced,cheaplydressed,bitter womanmourninginaminorblueskeyhercountry’sforgottenman.As the lyrics and staging indicate, the veteran is out of work, a nameless bumonthestreetcornerhoundedbyfatcopswhohavenorespectfor himorevenforthemedalshewearsonhisfrayedcoat.Thenumberis asoulfulappealtorememberandtohonorthepast,whichthismodern age so quickly forgets, to remember the men who were used and then condemnedtopoverty. Itwasanunusualchoiceforamusicalfinale.Thefluffystagesuccess storiesandromancesoftheearlysounderamadelittlereferencetothe past.Instead,protagonistswhowereobsessedwiththefuturedrovefilm narratives.Theylivedtomakeahit;gettingsomewheremeantleavingthe pastbehindthem.Zanuckalmostsingle-handedlycreatedamusicalthat deliberatelylookedbackwardandforcedtheaudiencetoremember,even asitinvokedthewords“forgotten”initsmainlyricandrefrain.Curiously, writers James Seymour, David Boehm, and Ben Markson and director MervynLeRoyhadoriginallyplannedtoinserttheGreatWarnumber inthemiddleofthefilm.21Accordingtothescript,“ShadowWaltz”and arepriseof“We’reintheMoney”weresupposedtoconcludethestage musicalandthefilm.Buttheproductionwasshotinsequence,andZanuck and LeRoy left “My Forgotten Man” until the end. Was Zanuck, the Great War veteran, indulging in the same historical references he hadusedinThePublicEnemyandIAmaFugitivefromaChainGang? Whateverthereasons,deployingthesomberhistoricalnumberattheend ofthefilmgaveitaprominencethatwaslackinginthescript. Butaccordingtothecritics,thewarwasajarringelementinthemodern musical.Oftentheirreviewssimplyignoredthe number, pointedly praisingtheotherinterludesandDickPowellandRubyKeeler’sinnocent duets. Lucius Beebe of the Herald Tribune thought that Gold Diggers wasafluffyandpleasantfilmexceptforthelastfifteenminutes.Hecom-
WarintheRoaringTwenties 203
plained,“Superaddedtothisblitheandagreeablecomedyrecital,isan interludedepictingthewoesof‘MyForgottenMan,’asthejazzscoreof thepiecehasit,which,althoughapparentlyinsertedinthescriptofthe filmasanafterthought,tendstodiminishinaveryemphaticmannerits effectiveness and its qualities as entertainment.” Beebe singled out the numberforathoroughcritique,sayingthatitwasa“stupidintrusionon its integrity” and remarking, “It is only a pity that its producers had to diminishitseffectivenessbytheintroductionofashabbythemeofbogus sentimentalitywhichshouldbenoconcernofaphotoplaydesignedprimarilyasamusementfare.”22Inhisview,TheGoldDiggersof1933was steppingoutsideitslimitedbutcharmingrangewhenitmentionedmodernAmericanhistorywithsuchadefiniteattitude.EvenEdwinSchallert oftheLosAngelesTimesandMordauntHalloftheNewYorkTimes,who enjoyedthenumber,calledit“outofplace”andadisjunctiveelementin aHollywoodmusical.23 PerhapsforAmericans,invokingthewarinafilmsetduringtheDepression compounded too many tragedies. In recent years, films about theAmericaninvolvementinthewarincreasinglystresseditsfragmenting,bewilderingexperienceanditsdisillusioningaftermath.InWilliam Wellman’sHeroesforSale(1933),areturningwoundedsoldierbecomes addictedtomorphineanddescendstoanevenmorenumbingexistence ofpovertyandanonymity.AtMGM,W.S.VanDyckfollowedManhattan Melodrama’s direct correlation between war and urban crime with TheyGaveHimaGun(1937).LikeNailsNathanandallegedlyAlCapone,thebookkeeper-turned-soldiergoestowarandgets“anotherkindof diploma,”onethatwillpreparehimfortheurbanbattlefields.Thesewar storieswerenotaccountsofnationalenduranceandsuccessbutcounterhistoriesofthenation’scast-offheroes.EveninJohnFord’sTheWorld Moves On (1934), a grand, generational narrative of a successful Louisianamerchantfamily,theGreatWarsplitsthefamilyemotionallyand ideologically.Warprofiteeringcompeteswithpatriotism.Theactualwar footagethatwasaddedtothefictionalnarrativeactedasafurtherfissure, separating the seamlessly scripted Hollywood fiction of the nineteenthcenturySouthfromthedisjunctivedocumentarycinematographyofthe warera.24Criticswereappalledbythefilm;thewarwaspartofahistory thatthepublicwouldratherforget. Duringthesilentera,beforetheonslaughtofbitterwarmemoirsand ralliesfordisarmament,HollywoodromanticizedtheAmericanwartime experienceinFranceasaJohnGilbertbildungsroman(TheBigParade, 1925)andevenscriptedthewarasaredemptiveexperienceforayoung
204 VeteransofDifferentWars
Navahobrave(TheVanishingAmerican,1925).Filmmakersturnedthe warintocomicrelief(WhatPriceGlory,1926)andmoldeditintoaclassictearjerkerofthwartedlove(ShopwornAngel,1928).Narrativeswereset almostexclusivelyabroad;briefAmericanprologuesconsistedofpatriotic newsheadlinesandtheadolescentthrillof“joiningup.”Exotic,disillusioning,anddangerous,EuropeonlyenhancedtheisolationofAmerica. Withtheadventofsound,warfilmsacquiredcynicism,butthemostsuccessfulofthesefocusedontheGermanandBritishperspectives,notthe Americanexperience.ThefilmversionofErichMariaRemarque’sAll Quiet on the Western Front (1930) and R. C. Sherriff’s Journey’s End, filmedbyJamesWhalein1931,weresomeofthemosthonoredfilmsof theirproductionyears,andtheyreiteratedthedisputednatureofindividualheroismandtheoverwhelmingsacrificeofGermanandBritishyouth. TheirsatirewasnewtoAmericanfilmaudiences,wholackedGermany’s andBritain’sbitterliterarytraditionofwarmemoirs.ErnestHemingway’s moresuccessfulnovel,AFarewelltoArms,becameamotionpicturesuccessforGaryCooperandHelenHayesin1932,butitlackedtheanger, despair,andautobiographicalcomponentsofitsEuropeancompetitors. SetentirelyinEurope,thefilmhadnoAmericanprologue,nodisplay ofculturalconflict,andnocommentariesonwarhysteriaandindifference.Inthissense,itwaseasyforParamounttomoldHemingway’snovel intoafamiliarromanceofthwartedlove.AmericansoldierHerveyAllen’s grueling, day-by-day account of his war experience, Toward the Flame (1925),employedallthehorrificandbewilderingimagesofRemarque’s andSherriff’sfictionsbuthadafast,jumbled,confusingclosenesstothe noise,terror,anddeaththatnofictionalnarrativecouldcreate.Curiously,Allencomparedhismemoirtoacrippledfilm,bereftofitscapacity formotionandvitality:“Itisamovingpictureofwar,brokenoffwhen thefilmburnedout.”25Warshatteredbothnarrativeformandcinematic time,burninghistory,memoir,andfilmnarrativesundertheglareofArmageddon.Historyhadreacheditsmostdestructiveends,andmorethan adecadelater,inconfrontingthatwar,theAmericancinemacameclose tooverexposure.
TheGreatWarandRevisionistHistoriography HistorianMichaelIsenberghasarguedthatdespiteagrowingcynicism toward war in 1930s Great War feature films, Hollywood set nearly all itswarpicturesabroadandthereforedidnotquestionAmericaninvolvement. “The American cinema,” he wrote, “while willing to offer its
WarintheRoaringTwenties 205
patrons an alternate version of war, was unwilling to debate issues that might transgress the nation’s most sincere ideals.”26 For Isenberg, Hollywood ingenuously absorbed and glorified the democratic rhetoric of Woodrow Wilson. Yet Hollywood filmmakers consistently plumbed the failure of Wilson’s dreams and interrogated the worth of national war aimsinfilmssetinpostwardesolationanddestitution.JustasinPreston Slosson’s and Louis Hacker’s institutional histories, American cinema’s critical reassessment of postwar America began with the failure of the war experience—veterans’ unemployment, urban crime, economic collapse.DespiteGreatWarfilms’popularitywithaudiencesandcritics,they attracted fervent condemnation from censors, politicians, and special- interestgroups.America’sroleinthewarwashardtodepictwithoutrecallingthenation’spostwardecline.Romanceandpoignantlossmight flourishinwar-tornEurope(AFarewelltoArms),but“overhere,”thewar wasfilmedfromRobertBurns’sperspective.Eventhoughthewarmade theUnitedStatesamajorsuperpowerandcreatedapostwareconomic boom,itwasalsoresponsibleforthedevastatingagriculturaldepression, theriseofurbanAmerica,andtheinfluxofcrime.Itcontributedtothe decline and disappearance of the nineteenth-century values and past thatstillpersistedinmanyAmericanlivesandinHollywood’shistorical films.ItwasthepreludetotheVolsteadera,AlCapone,andtheDepression.Itwasnotaneventthatcouldbecrediblydeployedtoattracthistoricalcontinuityandnationalpatriotism.Instead,whenHollywooddid mentionAmerica’spartinthewarduringtheearlysoundera,itwasto deliberatelycriticizethenationalpast,topointouttheresultofthe“Great Crusade”—thedeclineofAmericaandtheriseofanewanddestabilized nationalhistory. A huge number of American histories and memoirs of the Great Warwerepublishedbeforethearmistice,butmanyweremerelymilitary and political defenses justifying the nation’s involvement in the Europeanconflict,textsthatintonedtheWilsonianslogan,“Theworldmust bemadesafefordemocracy.”However,thesewordsranghollowinthe nextdecade,particularlywithmanyhistorianswhowerenowashamedby theirwillingnesstospreadgovernment-approvedpropagandaduringthe war. Many American historians felt that the profession had discredited itself,sotheydirectedtheirtalentsatexposésofwarprofiteering,propaganda,andpoliticalmachinations.27Withtheriseofurbancrimeandthe ensuingDepression,anincreasingnumberofpopularandprofessional American historians condemned the country’s involvement in the war. In1931historianJohnMauriceClark’sassessmentofthewar’seconomic
206 VeteransofDifferentWars
effectsacknowledgedthatalthoughtheGreatWarmightnothavecaused theGreatDepression,ithadcreatedtheconditionsforthenation’sdecline.28Clarkdidnotcreditthewarwithsingle-handedlyinitiatingthe crimespree,buthedidnotignoretheconnectioneither.Veteranswere exploited,theVeterans’Bureauwasaneconomictravesty,andalthough veteranseventuallyreturnedtotheworkforce,mostlosttheirjobswithin monthsofthestockmarketcrash.Clark’shistorywasashocktomanywho wantedtoputthewarbehindthem,becauseheshowedthat1917–1918 wasnotapatrioticaberrationwithouthistoricalconsequences,something thatmunicipalitiescouldsimplycommemoratewithchunksofconcrete andmarble.Thewardidnotmaketheworld“safefordemocracy”;itactuatedpostwareconomicchaosandsocialunrest. In 1936 former secretary of war Newton Baker published Why We Went to War in an attempt to counteract the effects of studies such as Clark’s.Bakergallantlyproclaimedthatpublicopinionfrom1914to1918 was “well-informed” and therefore almost exclusively anti-German and inveighedagainstthecurrentrevisionistbentofhistoriography.Hecomplained,“Twentyyearslaterithasbecomethefashiontosuggestthatour entryintothewarwasnotinfactforthereasonsthenstatedandgenerally accepted,butwaseithertheresultofthepressureofspecialinterestsof onesortoranother,orthatwewerebeguiledbypropagandawhichcame from overseas.”29 Baker constructed a vindication of his dead president andattemptedtopresenta“justandclear”pictureofthewartimenation byquotingWilson,thepress,andotherpillarsoftheestablishment.UnfortunatelyforBaker,theseestablishmentfigureswerenolongertrusted by much of the public in the 1930s. In 1932, still a Wilsonian and an avidinternationalist,Bakerfailedtoobtainhisparty’snominationforthe presidency.Instead,theaberrantvoicesofTomPowersandAlCapone articulatedthenationalmoodduringthepost-Depressionera.Inhishaste todefendWilsonandinternationalintervention,Bakerconvenientlyforgotthepre-1917wartimepressbias,Wilson’sfailuretohaltarmssupplies totheAllieswhentheUnitedStateswasstillallegedlyneutral,theBritish violationoftheneutralityoftheseasandtheTreatyofLondon,andthe massive war loans that Americans such as J. Pierpont Morgan made to theBritishontheassumptionthattheAmericangovernmentwouldbail themout.Inhishistory,BakerrefusedtocredittherumorthatAmerican warpolicywasinfluencedbybigbusinessorBritishpressure,andhecondemnedthose“pacifist”andeven“communist”personswhosubscribed tosuchvulgareconomicdeterminism.30 Others,though,continuedtoquestionanysimplepatrioticexplana-
WarintheRoaringTwenties 207
tionforthegovernment’smotivationforenteringthewar.SamuelTaylor Moore’srebuttalfollowedin1937.Ratherthanassumingthatthenation sharedWilson’sandthejingoistpress’sperspective,Moore’sresearchindicatedthatevenaswarwasdeclared,thepublicregardedtheconflict as“unreal,adistantnightmarishdream,incomprehensibletolayAmerica.”31Americahadbeenpushedtowarbyviolationsofneutralityfrom bothGermanyandBritain,butMoorealsocalledintoquestionAmerica’s vauntedimpartiality,citingtheeconomicmeasuresthatconsistentlyfavoredBritain.In1939historianH.C.Petersonwentevenfurther.PropagandaforWar:TheCampaignagainstAmericanNeutrality,1914–1917 concentratedonthemachinationsoftheAmericanplutocratsandgoverningclassesinfavoringandeventuallysupportingtheBritishwareffort. The war was no patriotic crusade but rather the result of a successful propaganda campaign. But according to Moore, the public simply did notcare.Thegovernment’sandthepress’slegerdemainwasasunimportanttothepublicasWilson’sdemocraticrhetoricwas.TheAmericanwar experiencebeganinambiguityandconfusionand,formany,progressed todisillusionmentandapathy.Returningsoldiersfacedcivilianindifferenceandunemployment.LikeRobertBurns,theysoondiscoveredthat patrioticphrasesmeantnothing.32 Hollywoodfilmsoftheearlysounderaweresomeofthemostpowerful revisionist indictments of American involvement in the First World War,framingoneofthemostdisjunctivenationaleventsofthetwentieth century within the broken lives of war veterans, crime, destitution, andloss.AlthoughZanuckhadinitiatedthecycleatWarnerBrothers,he alsooccasionallyinsertedGreatWarinterludesintootherwisepedestrian scriptstolendacriticaledgetotheirperioddramas.In1937heauthorizedscreenwriterstoaddanArlingtonNationalCemeteryprologueto ThisIsMyAffair.Whenthetourguidementionsthatsoldiersfoughtthe GreatWarto“maketheworldsafefordemocracy,”thereareanumberof contemptuoussniggersfromthecrowd.Ayearlater,Alexander’sRagtime BandalsoreceivedsomeGreatWarhistoricalglosswhenZanuckwedged a war montage to complicate the lives of his three protagonists. In the script,warisabafflingseriesofexplodingshells,wire,andfeetmarching throughmudandthenthestreetsofNewYork.ButforZanuck,forthe soldiers, and for Stella, the girl loved by the protagonists, there was no gloryinAmerica’sfight.Thewar,sheshudders,“wasallsohorrible—and useless.”ItwouldtakeZanucksixyearsandanotherworldwartoalter hisjaundicedperspective(Wilson,1944).Asthedecadeworeon,other studios were tempted by the Great War, particularly as a means of cir-
208 VeteransofDifferentWars
cumventingtheProductionCode’smoratoriumongangsterpicturesand excessive violence. MGM’s clout with Hays undoubtedly enabled it to makeTheyGaveHimaGun,whichpursuedZanuck’searlyworkinThe PublicEnemyandIAmaFugitivefromaChainGang. Yetwhilesomefilmmakersscriptedanonymousveteransandgangsterswithintheframeworkoffilmbiographyandhistory(repeatingpast successes), others took an even more unconventional view of wartime protagonists. When MGM decided to remake Paramount’s 1928 silent successTheShopwornAngel,thefilmmakersconsideredwarfromawoman’sperspective.In1938JamesStewartandMargaretSullavanre-created thestoryofPrivatePettigrew,aTexasrecruitstationedoutsideNewYork whilehewaitsforoverseasorders.Whileonleave,herunsintothecynical Broadway actress Daisy (Sullavan) and gradually persuades her to fallinlovewithbothhimandthewar.AfterPettigrewembarksoverseas, sheisabletosing“PackUpYourTroubles”withrealtearsinhereyes. MGMwasnotoriouslycasualaboutitshistoricalfilms,frequentlyusing themasunabashedbackgroundsforstarromances(TheGorgeousHussy, 1936).Unlikeotherstudios,MGMpreferredtodevelopthehistoryand thescreenplayinseparatecompartments.WaldoSalt’sscriptwasthereforeconcernedwiththePettigrew-Daisyromance;heleftthehistorical backgroundandnewspaperinsertsformontageexpertSlavkoVorkapich toworkoutwithdirectorH.C.Potter.33 By1938,MGMfilmmakershadtohandleGreatWarmaterialwith extremecare.Europewasonlyoneyearawayfromanotherfull-scalewar, andmanyAmericanswereunderstandablyanxiousaboutyetanotherforeignentanglement.ButalthoughMGM’sportrayalofDaisy’scynicalennuiandensuingromanticandpatriotictransformationmayhavelooked likesubtle1938jingoismandstandardMGMmelodrama,itwasactually ahistoricallyaccuratepresentationofmanyAmericans’reactiontothe GreatWarin1917.34UnlikeParamount’s1928version,whichstilloperatedundertheromanticwarcycleinstigatedbyTheBigParadeandWhat Price Glory, Daisy’s initial disdain for patriotism in the remake reflects Americans’1917perspectives,whileengagingpostwarcritiquesofAmerican involvement and contemporary war anxieties. Although at the end ofthefilm,likeCarolinGoldDiggers,Daisybecomesthesingingemblemofthewar,thepatrioticinspirationwho“smiles”throughhertears, MGM’sShopwornAngelwasnotthestudio’susualescapistfare.Thewar killed Daisy’s ill-fated romance with Pettigrew, and it fissured MGM’s standardpatternforaclassicallyhappyending.Butevenmorecrucially, thearmisticedidnotendthenarrativeasameansofjustifyingPettigrew’s
WarintheRoaringTwenties 209
death;instead,Daisy,1917Americans,and1938audienceswereleftto endurefuturedefeatsandaworldwarthathadnoend. Inspiteofitsunusual,two-edgedhistoricalcontinuitybetween1917 and1938America,MGM’sremakeofShopwornAngelresemblesseveral otherGreatWarfilmsreleasedduringtheearlysounderaandpre–World WarIIera.Inparticular,thesefilmsfocusonafemaleprotagonistwho hastocarryonwhenthemalecharacterbecomesimprisonedinthepast bydeath(ShopwornAngel,1928),poverty(GoldDiggersof1933),orpersecution(IAmaFugitivefromaChainGang).Ifveteransweremodern Americanhistory’svictimsinearlysound-erawarfeatures,thenwomen functionedashistoriansinaworldpermanentlydestabilizedbywar—just as white southern plantation mistresses were left to tell the Civil War’s untold history and bitter postwar struggle for economic survival. Carol inGoldDiggersexhortedviewersto“remember,”MGM’sDaisyadvised Americanstosmile,yetbothwerefictionalwomenexistingwithinaconstructed modern history. It was left to RKO to represent a real Americanwoman’swartimestory.TheStoryofVernonandIreneCastle(1939) notonlynarratesIreneCastle’swarexperiencebutalsoilluminatesthe dialectic between women as historical protagonists and Hollywood actresses’struggletogainameasureofpowerinstudio-eraHollywood,often through their involvement in prestigious historical films. Irene Castle’s and Ginger Rogers’s stories were each uniquely impacted by their war experienceandwarstories.
WomeninFilmHistory Throughoutmostofthe1930s,GingerRogersremainedAmerica’smost popularadultactress.35AlthoughherearlyWarnerBrothershooferroles broughtherincreasingfame,herreputationasastarsolidifiedashalfofthe FredAstaire–GingerRogersdanceteam.TheirfilmstogetherfromFlyingDowntoRio(1932)andTheGayDivorcee(1933)tothe1938release CarefreewereRKO’smostconsistentlysuccessfulproductions.However, theirworkwasneveraccordedseriousconsiderationasprestigefilmmaking. In 1939 film historian Lewis Jacobs pointedly ignored Astaire and RogersinhiscontemporaryhistoryofAmericanfilm.Andalthoughfilm criticssuchasOtisFergusson,FrankNugent,andHowardBarneswere oftenenthusiasticaboutAstaire’svirtuosity,theydismissedthescriptsand characterdevelopmentastriteandrepetitive.Justasfrequentweretheir attempts to marginalize Rogers’s contribution and write her out of the historicdanceteam.AccordingtomostcontemporaryAmericancritics,
210 VeteransofDifferentWars
RogersmerelymimickedAstaire;shecertainlylackedanyactiverolein creatingtheirdancenumbers.TopHatwasknownas“theFredAstaire dancing film,” and the series was playfully called “Astaire’s stock company.”Astairewasthestar;Rogerswas“justagood-lookinggirl,speaking linesformoney.”36Forty-oddyearslater,shewoulddiscussherindependent contributions to Warner Brothers’ 42nd Street and The Gold Diggersof1933andrememberherdemeaningtreatmentatRKObydirector MarkSandrichandAstaire:“Overtheyears,mythshavebuiltupabout myrelationshipwithFredAstaire.Thegeneralpublicthoughthewasa Svengali,whosnappedhisfingersforhislittleTrilbytoobey;intheireyes, mycareerwashiscreation.ItjustsohappensthatwhenFredandIcame togetherforthefirsttimeinFlyingDowntoRio,itwashissecondfilm andmytwentieth.”37Rogersemphasizedtheendlessrehearsalsandthe collaborativenatureoftheirpartnershipwhendevelopingroutines.However,Sandrich,whodirectedmanyoftheAstaire-Rogersfilms,sawRogers as“merelyaclothes-hangerwhocoulddancesometimes,singuponoccasion,andperhapsmaketheleadingmansmile.”Rogersrecalled,“When we finished a take, Mark came scurrying over to Fred to tell him how terrifiche’dbeen—andwouldn’tbataneyeatme.”38 Unfortunately,RKOexecutivessharedthisshabbyassessmentofher work;theysilencedRogers’scomplaintsonthesetandpreventedherfrom participatinginmoreprestigiousRKOfilms.39By1935,Rogerswastired ofthistreatmentandthetime-consumingmusicalsandwantedtoattempt amorechallengingroleinaprestigefilm:QueenElizabethinMaryof Scotland. Rogers felt that the only way she could escape her typecastinginfluffy,modernroleswastoauditionindisguise.Withthehelpof JohnFordandheragentLelandHayward,sheappearedatRKOas“Lady Ainslie” and was a strong contender for the role until RKO executives discoveredherrealidentity. Althoughitisunderstandablethatthefrontofficewouldinsistonher continuedparticipationinthesuccessful,inexpensive,butslightdance films,studioexecutiveswereundoubtedlyremissintheirfailuretoexploit Rogers’smassivepopularitybycastingherinmoreimpressivevehicles. Hollywood’smostpowerfulAmericanactressesallgraduatedtoperiodor historicalproductionsaftersuccessfulmodernroles.BarbaraStanwyck’s early work with Frank Capra led to historical work at RKO and Paramount. Shirley Temple’s biggest box-office successes were period films atFox.JeanetteMacDonald,MaeWest,andIreneDunnewereconsistently cast in American period films. After a sensational start at RKO, DavidO.SelznickgavetheleadinLittleWomentoKatharineHepburn.
WarintheRoaringTwenties 211
NewcomersMargaretSullavanandOliviadeHavillandhadreceiveda greatdealofpresscoveragefortheirAmericanhistoricalfilms.Jezebeland TheSistersrepresentedBetteDavis’sgrowingpoweratWarnerBrothers. EvenClaudetteColbert(MaidofSalem),JoanCrawford(TheGorgeous Hussy),JanetGaynor(TheFarmerTakesaWife),andJeanHarlow(Hells Angels,ThePublicEnemy,Suzy)madehistoricalpicturesinthe1930s. Rogers, responsible for RKO’s biggest grosses, was conspicuous by her absenceinprestigefilmmaking. By 1938, Rogers had succeeded in raising the standard of her film vehicles,starringinGregoryLaCava’sStageDoorandGeorgeStevens’s Vivacious Lady. In 1939 RKO decided to cast Astaire and Rogers in a historicalfilm,TheStoryofVernonandIreneCastle.Rogerswasdelightedbecause,assheremembered,shenowhadaroleshecouldresearch atthelibrary.40Inherfirsthistoricalfilm,Rogerswasappropriatelycast as the dance and fashion trendsetter Irene Foote Castle. The historical developmentinHollywoodfilmmakinghadbecomesowidespreadand successfulthatitinfiltratedthemostultramodernfilmcycleofthemall. RogerstradedthecontemporaryfashionofBernardNewmanforcostume designerWalterPlunkettandIreneCastle’speriodprewargowns.Cole Porter,GeorgeGershwin,andIrvingBerlinwerereplacedwiththehitsof twenty-fiveyearsago,andinsteadofAstaireandRogers’simportedBroadwayballroomhoofing,RKO’sdancecoachHermesPantrainedtheteam to imitate the Castles’ dance innovations: the Castle walk, the fox-trot, andthetango. Afewyearsearlier,whenRKOpurchasedtherightstoIrene’sstories, studioexecutiveshadagreedthatsheshouldactasaconsultantonthe film.41AlthoughshehadmarriedtwicesinceVernon’sdeathinanairaccidentduringtheGreatWar,Ireneremainedinthepubliceyemainlyas thearbiteroftheirhistoryasAmerica’smostfamousdanceandfashion team.Inthe1920sshepublishedseveralarticlesandpamphletsonher careerwithVernon,includingMyHusband.42RKOassignedthescript to Broadway librettist Oscar Hammerstein II, who had also written the screenplay for another period musical, Show Boat. Hammerstein drew heavily on Castle’s narrative as he worked in the autumn of 1937,43 and he emphasized both the historical period and how the Castles transformeditwiththeirchicEuropeanstyle.ButevenastheCastles changedtheirera,Vernonbecameitsvictimafteronlyafewyearsofinternationalstardom.BorninEngland,VernonhadjoinedtheRoyalAir Forcein1915.HeflewinFranceforseveralmonthsbeforereturning toCanadatotrainnewrecruits.Then,justbeforehewassupposedto
212 VeteransofDifferentWars
gohomeonleavetoseeIrene,oneofhisstudentscrashedintohisplane andkilledhim. Hammersteinplannedthewarasthecenterpieceofthenarrative,the eventthatsplitsthehistoricteam.Healludedtotheoutbreakofhostilitieswithanelaborateseriesofnewspaperinsertsandprojectedheadlines, latercementingthehyperbolictextualrhetoricwithVernon’sownunderstatedexplanationofwhyhehadtoreturntoEnglandtofightGermany long before the Americans joined up.44 Even as the war and Vernon’s deathendtheCastledanceteam,Irene’sfriendWalterremindsherand theaudiencethatVernonCastle’smemoryandimpactwillbemorelastingthanhislife.ThediegesismayendwithVernon’sdeath,butHammersteinplannedtoclosethefilmwithamontageoffuturedancingteams, allinfluencedbytheCastles:CarlHysonandDorothyDickson,Clifton WebbandMaryHay,andtheDeMarcos.And“asawind-uptothispageantoftalentandyouthandgaiety,”hewrote,“Mr.AstaireandMissRogersemergeinaseriesofquicklyshiftingeight-barfragmentsfromtheir successionofpictures,GayDivorcee,TopHat,SwingTime,establishing themas‘themselves,’theoutgrowth,themodernequivalent,thesymbol ofrhythmicbeautyandromanticappealtheCastleshadforthepublic twentyyearsago.”45CastingAstaireandRogersastheCastleswasasmart publicitymove,capitalizingonboththeircurrentpopularityandthehistoricalcycle;italsorepresentedHollywood’sunderstandingofhistoricalcontinuity,ofthepersistenceofthepastanditscoexistencewithitsmostmodern symbolsofHollywoodglamour:FredAstaireandGingerRogers. Like Rogers, Irene Castle had always been the second half of the danceteam,buthermemoirsservedtobothcommemorateVernonand describe her own active role in managing and publicizing their work. Hammerstein,withwritersDorothyYostandRichardSherman,followed Irene’s lead by emphasizing her role in forming the dance partnership anddecidingonitsprofessionalattitudeandpresentation.Atthebeginningoftheircareers,Vernontriestoexplaintheirdancestyletoaprospectiveproducer,butheisdiffidentandinadequate.“It’s—sortofadance,” hesays.Irenerepliesfirmly,“Itisadance.”Theproducer,old-timecomedianLewFields,expostulates,“Sowhenhaveyouhadanydancingambitions?”IreneanswersforVernon,“Sincehemetme.”46Thiswasmore creditthanGingerRogersevergotforinfluencingAstaire,buttheunique relationshipbetweentheCastlesandAstaire-Rogerscreatedanonscreenoffscreenresonancebetweenthetwopairs.ItisunusualthatIrene/GingeristheoneattemptingtoraisetheircareersfromVernon/Fred’susual brandofcornycomedy,anditwasGingerwhowasmostanxioustoin-
WarintheRoaringTwenties 213
jecthercareerwithhistoricalprestige.Ashisinitialtreatmentindicates, Hammersteinwantedtofocusonthemanyconnectionsbetweenthetwo dance teams, and Irene’s professional assertiveness, her creation of the team,andhercontrolofitsprofessionaletiquetteandpublicsuccessin EuropeandAmericasaymuchaboutRogers’softenmarginalizedrolein classicalHollywoodfilmmaking. Atthesametime,Rogersdecidedtotaketheinitiativeandpublicize her more active role in making the prestige film. Unfortunately, Irene Castlewasnotsupportiveofherdecision.Infact,inherautobiography publishedtwentyyearslater,CastleclaimedthatFredAstairehad“begged her”nottoletRogersgetthepartandthattheheadofficehadpromised toinstituteanationwidesearchtokeepRogersfromtherole.47ButCastlewasnotScarlettO’Hara,andRKOwasnotSelznickInternationalor MGM.RogersfelttheantagonismbutthoughtthatCastle’screativeenergiesweremisdirected.Castleseemedmoreproudofherinfluenceonthe fashionworldthanondancingandinsistedthatshedesignRogers’swardrobe.RKOagreednominally,butthestudiohiredfamedperiodcostume designerWalterPlunkett,freshfromhisworkonGonewiththeWind,to supervise.Plunkett,theacknowledgeddoyenofperioddesign,wasalso a close personal friend of Rogers, and the two worked secretly to alter thedesigns.RogerssupportedPlunkett’sandCastle’spushforhistorical authenticity,butperhapsoutofspite,sherefusedtoalterherplatinum pageboy for the shorter Castle bob. Historical film or not, The Story of VernonandIreneCastlewasalsoaGingerRogersfilm.By1939,Rogers hadanimagethat,ifnotexactlyimmutable,waswellestablishedfrom herdaysatWarnerBrothers.Herdecisiontomaintainherhairstylewas herwayofassertingherowncreativeimage,ofmeldingherdancefame andstylewithIrene’s.Afterall,therewerenodisagreementswhenAstaire didnotmimicVernonCastle’shairstyleorBritishaccent.Irene,however, resentedthiscompetitorwhosefamehadalreadyeclipsedherown. Aside from these disagreements over sartorial and tonsorial details, bothAstaireandRogersreactedwelltothescript.Althoughseveralwriters worked on it, each maintained a consistent historical structure, usingtexttitles,newspaperinserts,fashionlayoutsandmontages,shotsof the film studio where Irene worked, and frequent dialogue references totheCastles’placeinhistory.48Butasthescriptsdeveloped,Hammerstein’s final film references to the real Astaire and Rogers disappeared, and the text inserts of the First World War remained. Dorothy Yost in particularofferedafascinatingapproach,unitingtheCastles’storywith theinternationalwarcrisis.Textinsertsshowtheheadlinesannouncing
214 VeteransofDifferentWars
thatPresidentWilsonwillkeepAmericaoutofthewar,whileinsidethe newspaper,Irenemodelsthe“Castlebob,”whichsentwomenflockingto theirhairdressers.49Thescriptsemphasizethesecompetitivehistoriesin theircontrastingtextinserts.TheCastles’wealthy,successfullifestyleand theirimpactonartandfashionrepresentaplayfulprewarinnocencethat looksforwardtothesocialrevolutionsofthe1920s.Yetthisimage-driven entertainmenthistorycompeteswiththewrittenhistory,thedocuments of the war and its deadly toll on British and later American youth. In thecourseofthefilmnarrative,thesedocumentinsertsbecomehistoricalintrusions,black-and-whiteeventstobefearedbyIrene.Evenasthey chroniclecontemporaryevents,theyalsorepresenttheinescapablehistoricalrecord.ItturnsoutthateventheCastlesarenotimmunefromthe gripofhistory.Thewarseparatesthem(literally,insplit-screenimagery), andVernonenlistsintheRoyalAirForce.IreneretreatstoHollywoodto makewarpicturesforHearst’sInternationalStudios.Whileonthesetof onefilm,thedirector,aCecilB.DeMilletype,growls,“Let’smakethis biggerthanthewar.”50ThefilmisPatria,soontobeIrene’smostpopular film.ButasIrene’scheerfuldisregardoftheseoverblownfilmsintimates, thesewartimepictureshardlyaspiredtobe“accurate”portrayalsofthe warorevenmasterpiecesofpropaganda.SoonafterhersojourninHollywood,Vernoniskilled.Insteadofgoingonalone,makingherowndance andfashionhistory,thewarforcesIrenetobecomeapassivereceptacle ofpatriotism—aninstrumentoftheestablishedhistoricalevent.TheCastles’partnershiphasnowbeentotallydestroyedbythewar,andthelast glimpseofthemtogetherisasghostlywraithsglidingintheairofIrene’s imagination.
TheGreatWarsplits thecoupleinTheStory ofVernonandIrene Castle(1939).
WarintheRoaringTwenties 215
GingerRogersasIrene FooteCastleinPatria.
Inthefinalstagesofproduction,RKOdecidedtoaddanextrahistoricaltouch:atextforeword.“Inafamousandbelovedera,”itbegan,“near enoughtobewarmlyremembered,twobrightandshiningstars,Vernon andIreneCastle,whirledacrossthehorizon,intotheheartsofallwho lovedtodance.Thisistheirstory.”ButdirectorH.C.Potter,freshfrom workingonShopwornAngel,evenincludedanafterwordthatreaffirmed thefilm’shistoricalbasiswhileadmittingthatthescripttooklibertieswith the names of other characters. Publicity and reviews made the most of AstaireandRogers’sventureintohistoricalfilmmakingandRKO’schoice tohistoricizeeventsonlytwenty-fiveyearsold,butitwascertainlynotthe firsttimethatHollywoodgavethetwentiethcenturythehistoricaltreatment. TheStoryofVernonandIreneCastlewasalsothelasttimethatAstaire andRogerswoulddancetogetheratRKO.Theirpartnershipended,fittingly,withahistoricalfilmrecountingthebriefbutspectacularcareers oftheirdancingantecedents.Whereasthemostimportanteventofthe lastgeneration,theGreatWar,hadseveredtheCastles,onlycareerambitionendedtheAstaireandRogersseries.Rogerswentontofulfillher dreamofbeingaseriousdramaticactress,winninganAcademyAward thefollowingyearforherperformanceinKittyFoyle,atext-bolstered,selfproclaimed “natural history” of the American woman. But after Kitty’s saga, Rogers only occasionally made historical or period films, such as the1920scourtroomfarceRoxieHart(1942)andaDolleyMadisonbiography,MagnificentDoll(1945).JustasAstairewastheepitomeofthe modernman,Rogerswastheessenceofthemodernwoman,andhistoricalfilmsseemedinconsistentwiththeirimage.AlthoughFrankNugent
216 VeteransofDifferentWars
admiredTheStoryofVernonandIreneCastleandgaveRogersunusual topbillingoverhercostar,hewrote,“RogersandAstairehavebeenso closelyidentifiedwithlightcomedyinthepastthatfindingthemotherwiseemployedispracticallyasdisconcertingasitwouldbeifWaltDisney weretothrowMickeytothelions.”51Buttheblame,hesaid,laywiththe conditionedaudience’sfamiliaritywiththinscriptsandthebrittlepresent,notwiththeactors’workinafaultlessandpowerfulhistoricaldrama. FilmhistorianssuchasArleneCrocehavenotedthatAstaireandRogers’s forayintohistorymayhaveindirectlyendedtheirfutureasateam.52But in spite of both Nugent’s worries about its unconventionality and film historians’ cool reception, The Story of Vernon and Irene Castle was a hugebox-officehitinApril1939,particularlyinNewYork.WithonlyThe StoryofAlexanderGrahamBellandDodgeCityforcompetition,thefilm abouttheCastlesclearedmorethan$100,000inthefirstweekatRadio CityMusicHall.53Ratherthanendingahistoricpartnership,TheStory ofVernonandIreneCastleprovidedGingerRogerswiththeprestigeto tackleRKO’sbiggestfilmof1940:KittyFoyle. Americanfilmmakershadplacedthewarandthebootlegging1920s in the past tense since the early sound era. Perhaps it was the sudden DepressionthatendedtheJazzAgewithsuchdecision,orperhapsitwas thenewsoundmediumthatmadethesilent1920sevenmoreremoteand in need of “explanation,” but Hollywood’s historical interests expanded beyondthesolidoutlinesofthenineteenthcentury.Yetthiswillingness to historicize the antebellum and postwar eras did not necessarily condemnfilmstostandardlinearnarrativeandacademicstodginess—Public EnemyandScarfaceensuredthat.By1939,however,withmanyfilmmakersanxioustorivalorexceedtheworkoftraditionalhistorians,theyalso tended to take themselves too seriously. The Story of Vernon and Irene CastleendedthepairingofAstaireandRogersforadecade;something similarhappenedtoJamesCagney’scareerinscreencrimewiththereleaseofTheRoaringTwenties.
MarkHellinger,AmericanHistorian MarkHellingerwasnoordinaryfilmmaker,althoughhesharedthebackgroundofsomeofHollywood’smostarticulatescreenwriters,havingbeen aNewYorknewspapermanandcolumnistandthenasuccessfulBroadwayplaywrightandproducerbeforeheadingwest.HisgrittyNightCourt (1932),anunproducedplay,wasaninstantsuccessasafilmandbrought him to the attention of the Hollywood studios. In spite of a few erratic
WarintheRoaringTwenties 217
storycredits,bythelate1930s,Hellingerhadnotyetmadeanamefor himself.Butlikemanyofhiscolleagues,Hellingerrealizedthatprestige andhistoricalfilmsweretheindustry’smostlucrativecombination.Yet he was no DeMille; for him, the most powerful historical events were thosethataffectedhisowngeneration.TheGreatWarandtheaftermath oftheRoaringTwentiesweredefinitivehistoricalperiods,andHellinger’s mosthauntingrealizationwasthathisworldhadbecomepartofthepast. He selected Warner Brothers, the studio most connected with filming modernAmericanhistory,andpitchedhisstory,“TheWorldMovesOn,” withthepronouncement,“Thisisabigpicture:Itiseitherbig—oritis nothingatall.”Specifically,hebelievedthatthehistorymadeit“big”and prestigious.“For,whileitdealswithaspecificsetofhumans,thebackgroundisfarmoreimportantthanthecharacters.Andthebackground isthehistoryofanera.”Hellingerplannedtofilmthehistoryofpostwar America,theProhibitionera.Perhapsworriedthatthehistoricalaspects would seem too abstruse to Jack Warner and Hal Wallis, he defended hisidea,sayingthathistorywasmoreexcitingthanfictionandthatthe eventsoftwentyyearsagowouldstillappealtoaudiences.Heasked,even thoughhewastooyoungtohavefoughtintheGreatWar,“Didthatspoil my enjoyment of The Big Parade, What Price Glory, Journey’s End, All QuietontheWesternFront?Hell,no....Wastheearthquaketooclose formetoenjoySanFrancisco?DidthefactthatZiegfelddiedonlyashort timebefore,destroythenotionthatTheGreatZiegfeldwasagloriousmusical?”54Onthecontrary,heargued,history,particularlymodernhistory, wasmoreinterestingthanfiction. Hellinger’seffortstopersuadeWarnerandWallisofthemarketability of American history may have been unnecessary. The studio was in theprocessofmakingaseriesofhighlysuccessfulandexpensivewestern blockbusters,althoughithadbeenseveralyearssincethestudiohadmade alarge-scalegangsterpicture.WillHays’s1935moratoriumstillprevented thestudiosfromrereleasingLittleCaesarandThePublicEnemy.Inthe early1930s,Zanuckhadoftentriedtodeflectattacksonthefilms’moralitybystressingtheirhistoricalaccuracy,butthiswastheveryapproachthat theProductionCodeAdministrationfeared.By1939,Hellingerthought thathehadsolvedthebanongangsterfilmsandthecriticaluneasiness thataccompaniedHollywood’streatmentoftheFirstWorldWar.HistoricizingtheLostGeneration,placingitwithintheconventionalhistorical filmframework,wouldmakeitcensorproofandaudiencesafe. Hellinger’streatmentwasunlikethatofanyprevioushistoricalfilm. Hebeganwiththearmisticeandproceededyearbyyeartofocusonthe
218 VeteransofDifferentWars
nationaleventsandhowthefilmwouldintroduceandstructurethehistory.“Alwaysrememberthatthebackgroundisever-present,”hereiterated,“theProhibitionpictureinthewholeUnitedStates.Weintroduce backgroundwheneverpossible,wheneverlogical...newspaperarticles, coppersituations,discussions,mapsdrawninpencilontablecloths,and soon.”RobertLord’sshorttreatmenttookHellinger’spronouncementon thehistoryofProhibitiontoheart.HebeganthescriptwiththeSenate’s ratificationoftheEighteenthAmendmentandplannedtoendthefilm with another senator years later denouncing the effects of the Volstead Act.55However,itwasEarlBaldwinandFrankDonohue’sroughscript thatfullycapturedHellinger’shistoricalconceptionoftheera.Itwasnot enough to film from the present’s omniscient perspective; the writers understoodHellinger’sdemandforaself-consciousstructuralcommentary—amodernreactiontohistory.Theyconstructedaforewordsuperimposedoverarevolvingglobe,capturingtheparadoxbetweenAmerican nationalhistoryandthechallengeofinternationaleventsthrustonthe UnitedStatesin1914andagainin1939.“Today,whileaneracrumbles beneaththeheelsofmarchingmen,Americahaslittletimetorememberanastoundingeraofherownrecenthistory.Anerawhichwillgrow moreandmoreincrediblewitheachpassinggeneration—untilsomeday, peoplewillsayitcouldneverhavehappenedatall.”Theythenoutlineda GreatWarmontageofexplodingshells,spittingmachineguns,andwaves offallingsoldiers.56Later,writersJerryWaldandRichardMacaulaycomplicatedthistraditionalhistoricalstructurebylayeringaforewordovera seriesofimages,drawingtheviewerfromthepresentoffascistarmiesand labor riots back to breadlines, Hoover, Coolidge, big business, Wilson, andthewar.Buttheyeschewedthetraditionaltextforewordandturned completelytothemodernvisualandoralqualitiesofcinemaandradio historiography. ThefinalscriptofTheRoaringTwenties,asitwassoonretitled,began with an oral newsreel commentary controlling the slew of images. Ratherthanthedeliberatecontrastofmediaandroomforambiguityand deliberate contradiction in the use of text, The Roaring Twenties gave anupdatedandassertivehistoricalcommentary.Thisnewapproachto historicalcredibilitycreatedtotalcontrolovertheimagesandanalmost ethnographicdistancebetweenviewersandtheirremoteandquaintpast. Thewritersplannedthevoice-of-Godnarrationtopunctuatetheentire narrative,fromApril1918andthewarthrough1919,1920,1922,1924, 1927,and1929,creatingwhatfilmhistorianPhilipRosenconsideredto betheepitomeofnineteenth-centuryhistoricalpositivism.57Yetinspite
WarintheRoaringTwenties 219
Overdetermined images:theGreatWar, Hoover,and1929—all superimposedovera spinningworldinThe RoaringTwenties.
ofitsorallycontainedhistoricalnarrative,thedocumentaryimageswere superimposedsoquicklythattheypresentedarichandhistoricallyoverdeterminedsurface,aroaringcomplexitythatnovoice-overcouldfully restrain. Thefilmtellsthestoriesofthreefictionaldoughboyswhomeetduring the war and return home to become a gangster, a bootlegger, and a lawyer—unobtrusively connecting Hollywood’s fictional narratives to history.Thetechniquealsoemphasizedtheveteran-gangsterconnection establishedintheearly1930sbyjournalistsandfilmmakers.58Curiously, WarnerBrothersseemedcomfortablewiththescript’selaboratehistoricalstructuresandovertdidacticism.TheRoaringTwentieswasitsprestige historypictureof1939.ThestudiohiredRaoulWalshtodirectandthen casttopstarJamesCagneyandrisingplayersPriscillaLane,JeffreyLynn, andHumphreyBogart.Surprisingly,thestudioallowedthefilmmakers agreatdealoftimetoresearchandassembletheopeningforewordand montage, examining everything from historical texts to newspaper clippingstoHellinger’sownmemory.59 AlthoughHellingerhadwrittenonlythestoryoutline,WarnerBrothers retained him as a reliable historical compass throughout production. Like so many other historical productions, The Roaring Twenties remainedthewriter’sfilm.WallisevencommissionedHellingertowrite “aspecialnarrativeforeword”forthefilmbasedontheopeninghistorical montage.60Hellinger’sforeworddidnotcondemnorjudgethe1920sand itsgangsters;instead,itsaid,if“wewillbeconfrontedwithanotherperiod similartotheonedepictedinthisphotoplay...Ipraythateventsasdra-
220 VeteransofDifferentWars
MarkHellinger’s modernhistory. (TheRoaringTwenties)
matizedhere,willberemembered.”Hellingerwas“grateful”forhismemoriesofthe1920s,notashamedorhorrified,ascensorshadoncebeen. AlthoughheenvisionedAmericanhistoryfrom1918to1939asatimeof majorpoliticalmovementsandlegislation,yearsdominatedbypresidents fromWilsontoRoosevelt,Hellinger’snarrativewasabouttheriseandfall ofmarginalfiguresstrugglingagainsttheestablishment.ShotsofFDR, Hitler,Mussolini,andWilsonmayhavecrowdedtheopeningprologue, butthetruenarrativeoftheRoaringTwentiesbelongedtoanonymousexdoughboyslikeEddieBartlett(JamesCagney).Althoughhemightadopt thestructuresofinstitutionalhistoriography,Hellingerwantedtousethat establishmentvoicetoplacethecountry’smisfitswithinthetrajectoryof Americanhistory. Hellinger’s vision was realized. Under Wallis’s supervision, Warner Brothers covered the historical highlights of the past twenty years—the war,thearmistice,theVolsteadAct,thecrashof1929,therepealofProhibition.WarnerBrothersevenmanagedtoadvertisethestudio’sownclaim tonationalhistoricalimportancebyincludingitsgreatcontributiontothe motionpictureindustry,thetalkingJazzSinger(1927),withinthegreat eventsofmodernAmericanhistory.AsWallisremarked,hewantedthe spokenforewordtosoundlikeHenryLuce’spopularnewsreelseries“The MarchofTime,”61blendingtheterseauthorityofcontemporarynewsreportagewiththe“text”ofestablishedhistoriography.Butthisestablishment voice was capable of expressing postwar cynicism, noting that in 1918,“almostamillionyoungmenareengagedinastrugglewhichthey havebeentoldwillmaketheworldsafefordemocracy”(emphasisadded).
WarintheRoaringTwenties 221
Intheprocess,thefilmadoptedanomniscient,didactichistoricaltone thatappealedtothestudio’sburgeoningsenseofprestigebutoftenstruck others outside the industry as pretentious. Warner executives admitted that they hoped to stave off any censor criticism at home or abroad by puttingoutpublicitythatTheRoaringTwenties“isanhistoricalpicture,” notacrimedrama.62 Manycriticsadmiredafilmsoobviouslyconceivedtoimpress,but curiously,FrankNugentdespisedit.Astheyearswentby,thecriticgrew increasinglyannoyedwithHollywood’sprestigioushistoricalfilms.While DeMille’swillfullyinaccuratewesternepicsmightelicithisamusedcontempt,WarnerBrothers’self-consciousmodernhistorywastoomuch.He wrote:“TheWarnersarepresentingTheRoaringTwenties(attheStrand) withtheself-consciousairofanantiquarianpreparingtotranslateacuneiformrecordofalostcivilization.Withagrandiloquentandegregiously sentimentalforewordbyMarkHellinger,withemploymentofnewsreel shotstolenddocumentaryflavor,withacommentator’svoiceinterpolatingultra-dramaticcommonplacesasthefilmunreels,theirmelodrama hastakenonanannoyingpretentiousnesswhichneitherthethemenorits treatmentcanjustify.”63ForNugent,Americanhistorywasclearlythetraditional,nineteenth-centurynationaltalesrehashedandtranscribedwith deadlyprecisioninschooltextbooks.WarnerBrothers,inattemptingto emulatethatstyleofhistoriographyforacomparativelymodernsubject, wasguiltyofanabsurd“pretentiousness.”Here,cinemahadstoppedbeingtheharmlessentertainmenthelovedtodemeanandwasattempting somethingaboveitsstation.Nugentcontinuedwithhisdiatribe,hoping todeflatethefilm’spompositybyremarkingthatTheRoaringTwenties wasreallyjustWarnerBrothers’returntoitsprofitablegangsterera.Accidentally,NugenthitontheheartofWarnerBrothers’originaldecision tofilmHellinger’shistory.TheRoaringTwentieswasacontinuationofthe earlygangsterfilms—butitwasaculminationofthehistoricalgangster pictures initiated by Little Caesar and The Public Enemy.64 Critic Leo Miskin, though more sympathetic to Warner Brothers’ attempt to narratemodernhistory,alsoremarkedthatthefilmwaslessa“viewofthat decadebetween1920and1930”thanitwas“acondensedhistoryofall thoseWarnergangsterfilms.”65WarnerBrotherscreatedadualhistory—a deliberateandstructuredtraditionalhistoryoftheUnitedStatesfromthe FirstWorldWarthroughtheDepression,andafarewelltoitsearlygangsterfilmsnowbannedfromcirculationbythecensors.Ironically,history wastheonlywaytoreturntoitsearlytriumphswithhistoricalgangster picturesandtheeffectsofthewar.ButcriticswouldnotallowWarner
222 VeteransofDifferentWars
Brothers the right to make such a historical film. The studio had gone toofar. AlthoughHollywoodhadbeenproducingcriticalhistoricalsuccesses since 1931, Nugent’s ire and Miskin’s misunderstanding resulted from thefactthatWarnerBrotherschosetohistoricizetheRoaringTwenties withallthestructuralsolemnityofamoretraditionalnineteenth-century historicaldrama.The1920swasnotadecadeofnationalharmony,peace, prosperity,andvirtue.RatherthanheroicValleyForgesorpoignantGettysburgs,therewasonlyconfusing,mechanizedforeignwar.Therewere notriumphantreturningheroesbutdisillusionedveteransandgangsters. Therewasnodemocraticfreedomtoreturntobutpoliticalandeconomic repressionandtheVolsteadAct.Therewascrime,graft,sex,money,violence,depression,anddespair.ThewarbeganthenarrativeofTheRoaringTwenties;itcreatedafissureinAmericanhistory,adeeplyviolentage, andtheGreatDepression.Itwasanerawhensmall-timefellowsstruggled againstthebewilderingforcesofhistoryandlost.AstheTexasGuinan– inspiredcharacterKansassaysofEddieBartlett(Cagney)inthefinalsequence of the film, “He used to be a big shot.” Hollywood’s historical gangstershadoncebeenantiheroestobeproudof.Censorshipsilenced them,andby1939,underaburdenofhistory,theyweredefeatedinthe finalframesofthefilm.ItistruethatRico,Powers,andCamontealso died,butaheadoftheirtime.Ricomaybeunrecognizableindeath,but hisnamestillhauntstheChicagopapers.Incontrast,Cagney’scharacter inTheRoaringTwentiesisarelicthroughmuchofthefilm.Hisnameis forgottenbythetimeheisshot. Oddly,Nugent’schoiceofwordsinhisreviewwasapt:thepostwar erawas“antique”in1939,andthegangster-veteranwasarelic.Butin choosingthefilmformatofthetraditionalnineteenth-centuryepichistoricalnarrative,WarnerBrothersmadecriticsandaudiencesuncomfortable. Unlike the otherhistorical releasesin 1939, including Gone with theWind,DrumsalongtheMohawk,TheOklahomaKid,andJesseJames, thiswasnotaleofunityandpatriotismorevenofrebelliousheroism.It wasataleofdefeatanddecline,initiatedbythewar.Hellinger’scommitment to documenting recent American history, even when narrated by anomniscientpersonalvoice,onlydisconcertedthepublic.Hollywood hadexaminedcontroversialpointsofviewbefore,butalwaysfromasafe historicaldistance.Thewar,bootlegging,andtheDepressionweretoo close for comfort. Hellinger focused on the war and on the historical backgroundtosuchanextentthatitceasedtobebackground,andthe charactersfadedintopallidnothingness.Self-consciouslyornot,hecre-
WarintheRoaringTwenties 223
atedahistoricalworldwithoutheroesandwithouthope.Thehistorical prologue,ratherthanreassuringandstabilizingthenarrative,succeeded onlyinpresentingadestabilizedviewofthenationalpast.
This page intentionally left blank
8
TheLastoftheLongHunters, 1938–1941 “York,haveyoueverreadthis?” “HistoryoftheUnitedStates.Sureisalotofwriting...” “Thatbook’sfullofgreatmen.” —MajorBuxtonandAlvinYork,1941
Inspiteofthecritics’negativeresponsetoTheRoaringTwenties,Warner Brothers continued to invest in the Great War, releasing The Fighting 69thinearly1940.AswithitswesternsandCivilWarhistories,itsolicited thehelpofHermanLissauerandthestudio’sexpandingresearchlibrary. AvastteamofresearchersreadthemilitaryhistoriesoftheShamrockBattalion,theRainbowDivision,the69thRegiment,andthelifeofChaplain Duffy.Thestudiocontacteddozensof69thveteransinthehopeofcollectingtheirobscurewarmemories,andthereweremanyeagerresponses.1Fromthebeginning,screenwritersNormanReillyRaine,FredNiblo Jr.,andDeanFranklintookapagefromTheRoaringTwenties’scriptand plannedtointroducethefateofChaplainDuffyandhisIrishRegiment duringthelastmonthsoftheGreatWarwithanelaboratecombination textandimageprologue.The69th’shistory,likeAmerica’s,wasnotoneof effortlessglorybutoneofdefeat,tragedy,anddefensive,marginal,Pyrrhic victories:BullRun,Fredericksburg,theSpanish-AmericanWar,andthe Mexicanborderskirmishesof1916.2Placedinthecompanyoftheseother battles,WorldWarIislessanoblefightfordemocracythanabloodyand 225
226 VeteransofDifferentWars
unavoidabletragedythatthefightingIrishwouldovercomeonlythrough plainguts.Bythetimeshootingwascompleted,Duffyand“WildBill” Donovanweretheonlyhistoricalcharactersleftinthenarrative,butthe prologue,thehallmarkofhistoricalauthority,remainedintact. Twounusualoccurrencesmarkedthefilm’sproduction.DarrylZanuck,hearingoftherivalstudio’sproject,wrotetoJackWarnerdemanding thatWarnerBrothersdesistfromfilmingDuffy’sandtheregiment’sstory, sinceTwentiethCentury–FoxhadalreadyregisteredthefilmtitleFather DuffyoftheFighting69thandownedthefilmrightstoDuffy’smemoirs. ZanuckcomplainedatlengthtoWarnerthathehadto“befairaboutit andrecognizethefactthatwehavetheregistrationofthetitle,”andhe also made a point of condemning the rising practice of claim-jumping otherstudios’historicalproperty.3EvenSamuelGoldwyn,whohadnever beenacompetitorinAmericanhistoricalproduction(havingspentthe last few years adapting lavish contemporary American and British literaryprojects),wasbecomingaproblem.Theindependentproducerhad announcedearlierthatyearthathisproductioncompanywasfilmingthe lifeandtimesofJudgeRoyBeanintheupcomingTheWesterner.Indoing so,GoldwyninfringedonZanuck’shistoricalterritory.WhenFoxmerged with Twentieth Century in 1935, Zanuck inherited West of the Pecos (1934),ascriptandfilmlooselybasedonBean’scareerasarusticlawman withanincurablecrushonBritishactressLillieLangtry.Sincethen,the producerhadsuccessfullyintimidatedanyonewhoshowedaninterestin thearea,includingpopularwesternhistorianandformersilentscreenwriter Stuart N. Lake. It took Lake’s agents years to interest Goldwyn in “The VinegaroonandtheJerseyLily,”thebasisforTheWesterner.4Zanuckwas furious,butpowerless,ashisupstartcolleaguesrealizedthatentirehistoricalperiodscouldnotbeunderonestudio’scopyrightjurisdiction. Americanhistoricalfilmmakinghadbecomeabusiness,andZanuck nowwantedregulation.Althoughherealizedthattherewasnothinghe coulddotostopotherstudiosfrommakingsuchfilms,thecompetition for historical subjects (unlike literary adaptations and original screenplays) was so widespread that it was generating chaos in the industry. Americanhistorywasnotundercopyright,andevenifZanuckhadpurchasedallthebiographiesofDuffyandhisregimentorallthoseofJudge Roy Bean, Warner and Goldwyn could still get away with filming the subjects.Zanuck’sfrustrationisunderstandable.Hespentmoneytopurchasethedefinitiveaccountofahistoricalperiod,Duffy’smemoirs,and anotherstudiopreemptedhissubject,destroyinganychanceofmakinga profit.Hewaslearningthatpurchasinghistoriographywasnotworththe
TheLastoftheLongHunters 227
expense,anattitudethatwouldcripplethefilmmaker’sformerregardfor well-researchedandinnovativefilmhistories.Yetparadoxically,Zanuck’s historicalinnovationshadsavedhimfromotherformsofinterstudioexploitation;hismosthighlyregardedhistoricalfilmswereoriginalworks constructedbyhisscreenwritersNunnallyJohnsonandLamarTrotti.In 1939theDuffyfiascoremindedZanuckthatscreenwriterswerehisbest financialinvestmentinhistoricalfilmmaking. At Warner Brothers, Norman Reilly Raine attempted to push the boundaries of modern screen history. In the past few years, Raine had workedonarangeofhistoricalscriptsfromHowardHughes’sScarfaceto WarnerBrothers’TheAdventuresofRobinHood(1938),andhewasresponsibleforoutliningtheoriginalmontageprologueforTheFighting69th. Butduringproduction,hewrotetoproducerLouEdelmanproposinga textforewordtoprecedetheregimentalbattlemontage.Raine’splanned forewordwouldnotsimplyreflectonthehistoricalperiodbutalsoinvoke contemporarypatriotismdirectly.Hewrote:“Hereisathoughtastothe presentationofthisforeword.Insteadofrunningitoffthescreeninthe conventionalwaywhynothaveitspokenbyMr.HarryWarner,amanalreadyknownnationallyforthedepthandsincerityofhisAmericanism?A mediumshotofhimbehindhisdesk;behindhim,nottooobtrusively,the flag,andonhisdesk,facingtheaudience,hisnameplate.Lethimspeak quietly...makingitapersonalmessagefromthisstudiotoAmerica.Itwill beaninnovation.”5RaineknewwhyWarnerBrothershadsuddenlybecome interestedinGreatWarhistory,andhealsounderstoodtheimportanceof thetextforewordinlegitimizingthisinterest.Heoutlinedastudioposition thatclaimedthatanyfilmabouttheFirstWorldWarshouldbeconnected toamessageofcontemporaryAmericanism.WarnerBrothersshouldnot disguiseitspoliticsandprogramofantifascism,heargued,butdeclareits viewsanduseAmericanhistoryinitsnewcause—rescuingEurope.Most remarkably,thescreenwriterbelievedthatfilmproducershadthepublic confidenceandclouttoservenotonlyashistoricalauthenticatorsbutalso aspublicfigures.AlthoughRaine’ssuggestionwasnotadopted,hisbeliefin therhetoricalusesoftheforewordandtheimpressmentofAmericanhistoryintheinterestsofcontemporarypoliticalideologieswouldeventually dominateWarnerBrothers’historicalproductions. Although many American historical films had juxtaposed the past andpresentduringthe1930s,thesewereoftencriticalviewsthateither interrogatedtherhetoricofhistoryorconfrontedAmerica’sdefeats.But increasinglyafter1938,filmmakersdeliberatelyforcedparticularhistoricaleventstosubmittocurrentpoliticaldemands.Hollywood’sfilmmaker-
228 VeteransofDifferentWars
historianswererecognizingthepotentialsignificanceofthediscourseof Americanhistoricalcinema.Raine’splanforTheFighting69th’sforeword representedashiftintheuseof“historical”textandwoulddeterminethe productionchoicesforthestudio’snexttwomajorprestigefilms,Sergeant York(1941)andYankeeDoodleDandy(1942). AlthoughAmericanhistorianssuchasFrederickJacksonTurnerhad embracedtheconnectionbetweenhistoryandthepresentgeneration’s interpretationofit,thisrelationshipalwaysthreatenedtotransformhistoricalobjectivityandresearched,articulateargumentsintovehiclesforpoliticalideologyandculturalcontrol.Morerecently,historianPeterNovick locatedtheobjectivity“crisis”intheAmericanhistoricalprofessionwithin thewartimegovernment’ssuccessfuluseofhistoriansaswartimewriters— or,inmodernterms,propagandists.6Otherhistorianshavearguedthatwith Sergeant York, Hollywood achieved something similar; Warner Brothers presentednotaworkoffilmhistoriographybutasublimationof1941war angst.7Accordingtothisargument,asaworkofwarpropagandaandaplea forAmericanpreparedness,1917and1918matteredlessinSergeantYork asadistincthistoricalperiodthanasametaphorfor1941America.AlvinYork’sindividualheroisminSergeantYorkwasinsignificantcompared withhismalleabilityasanEverymanheroin1917or1941. ButWarnerBrothers’historicalmanipulationswerenotasfacileas late-twentieth-centuryhistorianshaveclaimed.Thestudio’spanegyricto SergeantAlvinYorkdidnotsimplyreflectcontemporarywartimerhetoric;itdrewonawholegenealogyofnationalmetaphors,presentingYork asareincarnatedrevolutionaryhero.FilmsaboutrevolutionaryAmerica madeafter1939werealsopreoccupiedwithcontemporarypoliticaland military conflicts. They were particularly anxious to manage American dissidence and resentment of Great Britain, rewriting America’s war of independence as a conflict between colonials and Indians rather than onewiththeBritisharmy(TheLastoftheMohicans,1936;DanielBoone, 1936;AlleghenyUprising,1939;DrumsalongtheMohawk,1939;NorthwestPassage,1940).ContextualizingSergeantYorkwithintheescalating trendofeighteenth-andearly-nineteenth-centuryrevolutionaryheritage filmsrevealsthecomplexityofWarnerBrothers’useoftheAmericanpast andtraditionalwartimepropaganda.
TheHistoricalCyclein1941 The Fighting 69th’s success in early 1940 convinced Jack Warner and Hal Wallis that Jesse Lasky’s long-standing idea to film a biography of
TheLastoftheLongHunters 229
AmericanwarheroAlvinYorkmightnotbeafinancialdisaster.Infact, York’sphenomenalcaptureof132GermanprisonersintheArgonneforestin1918seemedaperfectmatchforWarner’scurrenttasteforexotic wartimeadventures.York’sexploitsneedednoinventionorscriptdoctoring,unlikethecomparativelypedestrianstoryofthe69thRegiment.The film would cement the studio’s monopoly of the historical period and silenceZanuck.AlthoughLasky’s$50,000dealforYork’sexclusivestory meantthatZanuckwouldnotbewritingtoprotestthefilmasacopyright violation,bothofYork’sprincipalbiographers,SamCowan(SergeantYork andHisPeople,1922)andtheestateofTomSkeyhill(SergeantYork:The LastoftheLonghunters,1930),wouldsoonclaimthattheplannedfilm biographyplagiarizedtheirwork.Bothdemandedremuneration.8Studio executivesknewthatevenYork’svauntedautobiographyhadbeenghostwritten by Skeyhill and that, under these circumstances, Skeyhill’s estatehadsomemoralclaim.York’slifeandreputationwereworthmoney; Lasky and his colleagues were less interested in him as a challenging, previously unfilmed historical figure than as a salable film property—a made-to-orderfilmhero. LaskyfirsthiredHarryChandleeandJulienJosephsontowriteatreatment,andthetwoofthemaccompaniedLaskytoTennesseetomeetYork andhisfamily.ExperiencedhistoricalscreenwriterAbemFinkel(Jezebel) soon replaced Josephson, and although Lasky and the studio were enthusiasticabouttheirscript,theproducer’sandthescreenwriters’control overproductionwasshort-lived.NewlyhireddirectorHowardHawksdislikedthedetailed,ploddingnarrativeandthoughtthatasimplifiedheroic tale,rewrittenbyJohnHustonandHowardKochbasedonhisdictation, would make a better film. Hawks had begun his Hollywood career as a script editor and was famous for trying to improve on writers’ efforts, mostlywithdisastrousresults.HistoricalscreenwriterNunnallyJohnson stillrememberedHawks’smeddlingwithsomeirritationfortyyearsafter making Roxie Hart in 1942.9 But Hawks was unusually officious when makingSergeantYork.WithGaryCooper’ssupport,heconvincedLasky toauthorizearewriteandcedeproductioncontroltohim.Production chief Hal Wallis, possibly more intimidated by Cooper (the studio had securedhimfromGoldwyninexchangeforBetteDavis)thanbyHawks’s reputationfor“quitting”historicalproductionsinthemiddleofshooting, alsoagreedtothenewsystem. HawksnevermetYorkoradmittedtoreadinganyofthebiographies, buthewantedallofthefirsthistoricalscriptalteredbythenewyear.Surprisingly,HustonandKoch’sscriptretainedandevenenhancedChan-
230 VeteransofDifferentWars
dlee and Finkel’s historical structures and text superimpositions. The newscriptbeganYork’sscreenlifewithaconventionalsetofimpressive text forewords, reminding audiences of his pioneer greatness and courageunderfire.WalliswaswaryofallthetextandwarnedLaskythatthe didacticismassociatedwithtextintertitles“willhaveatendencytotake theedgeoffthepicture.”10ButHustonandKochretainedChandleeand Finkel’slengthyrepresentationofYork’sconscientiousobjectionstothe Great War and the detailed Argonne sequences. Their only significant changestotheChandlee-Finkelscriptweretotheopeningantebellum scenesofchurchgoing,hell-raising,farming,andturkeyshootinginFentress County. But Finkel, resenting his dismissal, was contemptuous of Hawksandhisnewwriters’hackneyedanddemeaningportrayalsofsouthernmountainpeopleandtheirtrivializationofYork’sprewarlife.Finkel protestedtoWallisinanine-pagememoheaded“TheSadStoryofSergeantYork”:“Ihave...longsincedespairedofprotectingthescriptfrom theblunderingstupiditiesofMessrsCooper,Hawks,HustonandKoch.” In Finkel’s view, Hawks had forced rewrites that cast York’s Tennessee mountaincommunityasacollectionofout-of-date,pioneeringmorons straightfrom“Coming’RoundtheMountain.”MaintainingAlvinYork’s andthepublic’srespectwasimportant,heinsisted,especiallyforastudio projectofthismagnitude,andcheapeningYork’sprewaryearsjeopardized the credibility of the Great War sequences. According to Finkel, Hawks hadalsoalteredthebattlesequencessothattheyfocusedonYork’ssingle- handed leadership and excluded the participation of the other men. Hawks’sideaofheroismwastriteandwouldinvitepubliccensure.But LaskyandWarnerBrothershadalreadytakentheprecautionofbuying theendorsementsofYork’scompatriotsbeforethefilmwasreleased,an expensiveifnecessaryhazardofmakingcontemporaryhistoricalfilms.11 York’sprewarmountainlife,inparticularhisseriousconversiontoa fundamentalistfaith,wastelescoped.Thefilmbiographybeganin1916, whenYorkwasdrinkingandcarousinginthealmostuniformlyreligious communityoftheValleyoftheThreeForks.Actually,York’swildways hadendedseveralyearsbeforetheadventoftheEuropeanwar,butdue toHawksandcompany’stimemanipulation,itlookedasifthewaritself wasYork’ssalvation.Onfilm,hisreligiouspacifismandantiwarconvictions lacked the deep-rooted ideals and sense of personal development expressedinhisautobiographyandbiography.Yetduetothewriters,the historicaltextremainedintegraltothefilm;York’sscreenlifewasbound by both a foreword and an afterword and was punctuated with text inserts.
TheLastoftheLongHunters 231
ThewritersalsodeployedanarrativedevicethatfirstplacedYorkin conflictandtheninstepwiththetextofAmericanhistory.Althoughan impressivetextforewordproclaimshisenduringAmericanheroism,early inthenarrative,York’sanonymouscountrylifeisspentignoringtheimportanceoftheprintedword,bothsecularandreligious.Heisaheathen, scorningtheBibleandPastorPyle’ssermons.Butwithhisconversionto thewordofGod,YorkentersintoaconflictwithAmericanforeignpolicy; hisreligiouspacifismleadshimtoopposethewarandtheprintedtextof patriotism.NewspapersfromnearbyJamestownremindtheisolatedcitizenryofFentressCountyofthewarinEuropeandlaterofAmerica’sinvolvementandthedraft.Signeddocumentsandgovernmentlettersfrom thedraftboardforceYorktogotoFrance.Butthesehostileofficialtexts arenottrulyimportanttohim.Heignoresthepapers,andHawksnever shotaclose-upofYorkreadingthedraftletters.ThefilminscribesacertainvisualdistancebetweenYork,theaudience,andtheprintedtext. When he reaches Camp Gordon, York expostulates with his commandingofficers,MajorBuxtonandCaptainDanforth,abouthispacifism, telling them that his life is governed by the supreme book, the Bible.InascenereminiscentofYork’smemoirs,Danforthtriestocounter hisquotationswithotherpassagesfromtheNewTestamentadvocating violence,butinvain.Yorkoutquoteshissuperiorofficer.However,the screenwriters constructed their own text metaphor central to historical filmmaking:BuxtoncircumventsYork’sreligiouspacifismbygivinghim anotherbooktoread,TheHistoryoftheUnitedStates.WhenYorkflips throughthepages,thefirstpictureheseesisofDanielBoone.Buxton thenremarksthatBoonewas“oneofthegreatest”andtellsYorkthat“the book’sfullofgreatmen”whoalldreamedofdefendingfreedom.York, intrigued,askstoborrowit,andtheofficerssendhimhomeonleaveto think about the war. As he reads about his true kin, his pioneer ancestors,thehistoricaltextinformsandchangeshisreadingoftheBible.In finding his true text, York becomes part of history, the next generation ofAmerica’spioneerfreedomfighterswholearnedthat“thecostofthis heritageishigh.”Itisonlyafterreadingthisbookinconjunctionwiththe BiblehighinthemountainsofFentressCountythatYorkdevelopsagodlikeperspectiveonhistown,acertainvisualdistanceandunderstanding necessarytoputhislifeinhistoricalperspective.Theaudienceneversees thetextofthesehistorybooks;theprivilegeofreadingthetextbelongs only to York, who will make his own place in The History of the UnitedStatesandinthe1941historyofAmerica’scanonicalheroes,Dixon Wecter’sTheHeroinAmerica.12Proppedagainstthemountainfacewith
232 VeteransofDifferentWars
SergeantYorkreadsThe HistoryoftheUnited States.
AlvinYork:atwentiethcenturyLincoln.
hisfaithfulhuntingdogathisside,Yorkcontinuestoreadasthesunsets. Hunchedoverthebook,hislankyframedarkenstoasilhouetteinthe fadinglight.Hebecomespartofthemountain,thefigureofamancut instone.Yearsago,anothercountryboysatthus,dreaminginhillsnot far from Fentress: Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln’s stone monuments were sonumerousthatin1932FranklinMeadepublishedacatalogofpublic statuary,butby1941,Lincoln’smostfamousheroiclikenesswaspartof GutzonBorglum’sMountRushmoremonument(completedin1941followingBorglum’sdeath). Lincoln’s presence had been evoked or inserted into a remarkable number of American historical films by 1941, but Sergeant York’s most
TheLastoftheLongHunters 233
Revisitingold“texts”:the DanielBooneconnection. (SergeantYork)
prominenthistoricalanalogywasbetweenDanielBooneandYork.On his mountain hunts, York often passes a tree carved with Boone’s own writing,“DBooncilledabaronthetreeinyear1760.”Butherecognizes theimportanceofthiswriting,thistieofheritageandplace,onlyafter hereadsBuxton’shistorybook.Boone’snameistheonlyonehereads aloudfromthebook.York’shuntingexpeditions,transposedtotheWesternFront,willmakehimtheequivalentofanAmericanbiblicalhero.In thefinalmomentsofthefilm,whenheretreatsintothewildernesswith hisfuturebride,GracieWilliams,hemayturnhisbackonurbanfame, buthebecomespartofhistoryandreplaysthemythofDanielBoone. WarnerBrothershypedthefilmwithareverent,four-shottextforewordandamassivepublicitycampaignabettedbyinterviewsandphotographsoftherealAlvinC.York.Criticsandaudienceswerecaptivatedby thefilm.AlthoughsomeofYork’sformerbrothersinarmswroteletters tothestudioandthenewspapersprotestingthefilm’sgrossexaggeration ofYork’swarexploits,audienceswerenotinterestedinthepossibilityof amorecriticalexaminationofheroism.13York’sreputationasanAmericanwarherowasalmostunassailable.BosleyCrowtheroftheNewYork Timespraiseditas“trueAmericana,”andEdwinSchallertinLosAngeles claimedthatSergeantYorkwas“themostbiographicalofmoviebiographies,”convincedthatYorkandhispatrioticwarexperiencerepresented thezenithofAmericanhistoricalcinema.14 IntheyearssinceSergeantYork’srelease,filmhistorianshavesingled itoutasamasterpieceofHollywood’swartimepropaganda,asimpleand directequationbetweenthewartimeheroicsandfaithofSergeantAlvin
234 VeteransofDifferentWars
C.YorkandthequalitiesneededtocombatfascismintheSecondWorld War.15Itsproductionhistoryseemedtocorroboratethisview;afterall,itis wellknownthatLaskyfinallyconvincedtheshy,reservedYorktocurbhis pacifismandsellhislife’sscreenrightsonlywhentheproducerreminded thewarheroofthedutyhestillowedhiscountry.PublicitymanBillRice proclaimedinthefilm’spressbook:“WorldWarTwoisresponsiblefor theamazingstoryofAmerica’smostfamoussoldierheroofWorldWar One reaching the screen.”16 The film seemed to be an explicit expressionofnationalmythandHollywood’smanipulationofhistorytoserve contemporaryideologies.YetSergeantYorkalsosharedmanyofthequalities of prewar historical filmmaking: the much publicized background research,thelavishproduction,theinventivestructuralcounterpointof textandimage,andtheprestigiouscriticalreception.AndalthoughSergeantYorkwasapubliclyacknowledgedworkofhistoricalpropaganda,it wasnotconsideredaconservative,establishmentfilmin1941.Whereas filmtheoristsJean-LucComolliandJeanNarboniandCahiersducinéma establishedthetemplateforideologicallydrivenanalysesofHollywood films, asserting that most of them reinforced dominant, conservative, government-approveddiscourse,SergeantYorkwasconceivedtooppose thoseviewsin1941America.17TheisolationistcontingentofCongress considereditsubversiveandpassedSenateResolution152,championed bySenatorsGeraldNyeandBennetChampClark,thusforcingWarner Brotherstoremovethefilmtemporarilyfromgeneralrelease.On4July 1942,ayearafteritspremiere,itreturnedtoAmericantheaters.18 In spite of Howard Hawks’s efforts to commandeer production and rewritethescript,fewcriticssingledhimoutastheprincipalhistorical filmmaker; instead, Lasky and the screenwriters received more attention.19ButitwasGaryCooperwhoreceivedthegreatestpraiseandhis first Academy Award.20 Hollywood’s highest-paid male star and 1941’s mostcriticallyacclaimedactorreachedtheheightofhiscareerplaying oneofthenation’scanonicalheroes.Cooper’ssuccessinthefilmwasespeciallyfitting;throughouthisearlycareer,hehadworkedonlarge-scale American historical productions such as Only the Brave, Operator 13, ThePlainsman,andTheTexans,andhehadfirstattractedattentionasa doomedGreatWarpilotinWilliamWellman’sAcademyAward–winning Wings(1927). Sergeant York represented both a continuation and an intensification of Hollywood’s World War I cycle. Whereas most early references todoughboyswerefictionaltypes,unknownveteranssufferingunderthe repressiveforcesofhistory,Yorkwastheultimateindividualheroandone
TheLastoftheLongHunters 235
ofthefewofhisgenerationtoenterthepagesofhistorywithaname.AlthoughWarnerBrothershaddepictedChaplainDuffy’swartimecareer inTheFighting69th,mostofthesupportingcastwasimaginary,andthe narrativeavoidedportrayingwartimeAmerica.SergeantYorkwasthefirst oftheseGreatWarfilmstofocusexclusivelyonafamousAmericanwar hero,butitalsodepictedportionsofhisprewarlifeandhisstrugglewith conscientiousobjection.Despiteitsscriptedandpublicizedhistoricalbasis,WarnerBrothers’biggestgrosserin1941representedatransitionfor Hollywood.21 After the massive expenditures on period historical films in the 1939 and 1940 seasons, the studios cut back on traditional prestigefilmsandsupportedthewareffort.22AlthoughcriticssuchasBarnes, Schallert,andCrowtherapplaudedthefilm’spresentationofhistory,they alsoacknowledgeditsuseasatoolofwartimepropaganda.SergeantYork wascaughtbetweenthesetwomodesofproduction. FromthetimeofSergeantYork’sreleaseuntilrecently,criticshave reiterateditspowerfulapplicationsofmythintheinterestofthewareffort.23 In many ways, the film does seem to lack the critical historical perspective of its predecessors. Even though the film presented a hero tornbypatriotismandconscientiousobjection,SergeantYorkpossessed noneofthecriticismofAmericanwarpolicy,thebitterpostwaroutcome, andthewidespreadantagonismtowardthemilitaryandthegovernment thatdrovesomanyofZanuck’searlyGreatWarveteranfeatures.Instead, SergeantYorkreliedontheprecedentsestablishedbyAlvinYorkandhis biographersandreturnedtofoundingnationalmythstoestablishasense of historical continuity in the unstable twentieth century. Yet this selfconsciousreturntopioneerancestorswasnotameremythicalregression to timeworn national symbols. Sergeant York and its revolutionary film precursorsexploredthecomplexandconflictedidentityoftheelemental patriot,themutablepublicconceptionof“revolutionary”heroes,andthe processofbecomingpartofthetextofAmericanhistory.
PioneerAncestors DespitetheGreatWar’sappearancein1920sprestigefilmssuchasWings andTheBigParade,America’sunusualandevenremoterelationshipto thewarrestrictedthepurelyAmericanforaystoellipticalexaminations of wartime America and the postwar veteran’s anonymous struggle for survival.WiththeexceptionofChaplainDuffyandAlvinYork(andthe moreobscureRobertElliotBurns),realhistoricalfiguresorheroeswere almostnonexistent.AshistorianDixonWecterwrotein1941,Yorkwas
236 VeteransofDifferentWars
“the greatest individual hero of the war,” achieving a traditional heroic statusthatevenGeneralJohnPershingandWoodrowWilsonlacked.24 Instead,thedoughboyorveteranbecameanEveryman,anamelessand passive American reacting to the horrors of war and the poverty of the aftermath.Inmanyways,Hollywood’shistoricalattitudetowardthewar concurredwithcontemporaryreportageandpostwarwritingsabout1917 and1918.Heroeswereextremelyhardtolocateinanightmareofmechanizedkilling.EvenBritain’sT.E.Lawrence,pursuedandexploitedby boththeAmericanandtheBritishpress,washardlytheestablishment’s ideaofatraditionalmilitaryhero.PershingandtheAmericanpresshad evenmoredifficultyfindinganAmericanwarhero.Twodecadeslater, popularhistorianSamuelTaylorMoorereasonedthat“itwasnotalone becauseofcensorship,northecomparativebrevityoflarge-scaleAmericanparticipationthatnomilitaryheroescomparabletoGrant,Lee,Sherman,StonewallJackson,PhilSheridanandJ.E.B.Stuartemergedfrom thewar.”25Theunprecedentedscaleofthebattlesmeantthatcommandingofficerswereremovedfromthefighting.Instead,doughboysandtheir officersofthelinesawtheaction.Butthecasualtiesweresuchthataudacity,courage,andleadershipoftenearneddeath,notlastingremembrance. EvenaceflyerEddieRickenbacker,whosesolitaryaerialexploitsrecalled aneraofindividualwartimeheroism,couldnotcompletelyacquirethe statusofAmerica’sgreatestwarhero.Intheeyesofmany,hisGermansurnameandancestrycompromisedhisreputation,andthroughoutthewar hewassubjecttopersecutionbyanti-Germanwarmongersandspyhunters.26Anglo-SaxonSergeantAlvinYorkbecamethepress’sanswerwhen theydiscoveredthathehadwalkedoutoftheArgonneforestinOctober 1918with132Germanprisoners. ThepublicwasastonishedtolearnthathewasaTennesseemountain man, born in a log cabin in Fentress County, largely self-educated, poor,devout,lean,lanky,andadeadshotwithalongrifle.Thistwentieth- centuryHawkeyeresistedbeingdraftedonfourseparateoccasions,even appealingtoPresidentWilsonthathispacifismwastheconvictionofhis church.Hisappealswerealldenied.EventuallyhewouldmeetaGeorgia-born major who attempted to convert him to the war effort with a barrageofBiblequotations.Afterthereligiousduelandalastleaveinthe mountains, York, transformed into a muscular Christian crusader, embarkedforFrance.InthelastdaysofOctober1918,Yorkwaspartofa detailorderedtoclearahillfortheAmericanadvance.Whentherestof hiscompanywaskilledorwounded,hemanagedtocaptureaGerman machine gun company single-handedly. Imagining that the advancing
TheLastoftheLongHunters 237
Germanswere“wildturkeys,”heshotthebackranksfirst,thenthefront. Whenhefinallyreturnedthroughtheenemylines,heconveyed132prisonersintoAmericanhands.Thestoryleakedoutslowly,butwhenitappeared in the Saturday Evening Post, York became a household name. Intheclosingweeksofthewar,heprovedthatAmericanheroismand individualactionwerestillviable. Curiously,though,neitherYorknorthearmyseemedanxioustocapitalizeonhisachievements.27York’sreportwassparseandmatter-of-fact. It was his commanding officer and the members of his company who endorsedhisactionsandspreadthestory.Yettheeventswerenotwidely knownuntilGeorgePatullo’sSaturdayEveningPoststorymadeYorka nationalheroin1919.28Infact,PatulloclaimedthatGeneralPershing wasannoyedwiththearticle,sinceitpublicizedYorkandscupperedthe general’sattemptstohighlighttheheroicdeedsofaprofessionalsoldier. Pershing’s reluctance to publicize York’s work in the Argonne forest is understandable.AmericanshadbeenfightinginEuropeformonths,and whenanindividualheroicactionfinallycapturedthepublic’sfancy,the hero was not a professional soldier but an uneducated, uncouth backwoodssergeant,adraftee,and,totopitall,aconscientiousobjector.Yet fromthebeginningofSergeantAlvinYork’sappearanceinprintedhistory,hisbiographersemphasizedtheveryqualitiesofthereluctantcitizensoldier.InwritingYorkintothehistoryoftheGreatWar,Patullostressed hissubject’ssimpleanddevoutbackground,hismountain-manindependencethatlinkedhimdirectlytoAmerica’scanonofruggedindividualists andcitizen-soldiers:DanielBoone,AndrewJackson,SamHouston,and, ofcourse,AbrahamLincoln.Patullo’sarticleconnectedYorktothecountry’srighteousChristianheritage,workethic,simplicity,andmodesty.He wasanold-fashionedheroforarapidlychangingAmerica,athrowbackto thenineteenth-oreveneighteenth-centurygenerationofpioneers.York’s lifeinthemountainsenhancedthepublicviewofhimasatraditional Americanandavanishingtypeinthewakeofindustrialandurbanprogress. Sergeant Alvin C. York was not an anonymous doughboy, yet he seemedtohaveanotherqualitythatmighthaverestrictedhisimpacton theAmericanpublic—namely,hismodesty.Fromallaccounts,hewas a shy young man, deeply conscious and ashamed of his lack of formal education.Heshunnedthepress.Afterhisdischarge,hereturnedtothe quietofhisprewarexistence.Yorkmighthavedisappearedfrompublic viewforeverhaditnotbeenforTomSkeyhill.Aveteranhimself,Skeyhill wasanunsuccessfuljournalistwhoknewthatYork’sstorycouldchange
238 VeteransofDifferentWars
hisfortunes.ButYorkrefusedtoworkwithhimonanautobiographyuntil Skeyhillslylyimpliedthatproceedsfromthebook’spublicationcouldbe used to finance a school for the underprivileged mountain children of FentressCounty.In1927theysettowork. Skeyhill’s first York publication was well timed. Sergeant York: His OwnLifeStoryandWarDiarywaspublishedshortlyafterAmericanveteranHerveyAllen’sTowardtheFlame,butitpreemptedtheglutofBritish memoirsinthelate1920sandearly1930s.29Thebookconcludeswith York’stersedailyjournal,begunshortlyafterhistraininginGeorgia,but themajorityofthetextisareputednarrativeautobiography.FormersecretaryofwarNewtonBakerwrotetheforewordandstressedthetransformationofmodernwarfarefrom“pompandparade”to“industrial”terror. ButBakerwasproudtopointoutthepersistenceofAmericanheroeslike AlvinYork:“Itisoftensaidthatthegloryandtheopportunityforindividualexploithaveallbeentakenoutofwar,buteverynowandthencircumstances still make opportunity, and certainly one such was made when SergeantYork,withhislittleband,foundhimselfsurroundedbymachinegunnestsinChatel-ChelcheryonOctober8,1918.”ForBaker,York’slife wasparticularlyrelevantformodernAmericans,forittaught“thepricelessvalueofindividualcharacterandmaywarnushereinAmericafrom allowingourchildren,whohavetousemachines,frombeingthemselves madeintomachines.”30Skeyhill’sprefacealsobolsteredYork’slifestory withpointedremindersofYork’sstatusasareluctantdrafteeandapure descendant of American pioneers. Although the book concludes with York’swardiary,Yorkdidnotwritethebulkofthenarrative.Advertisedas York’s“ownlifestory,”itisnonethelessretoldbySkeyhillinanimitation backwoodsdialect.Skeyhillastutelyrealizedtheimportanceofdisplaying thebookasYork’sown,ofconnectinghisheroicindividualactionsinthe warwithanequallyautonomousautobiography.YetasBakerindicates, York’sownlifewasinsignificantcomparedtotheabstractprinciplesand historicaltraditionhestoodfor. Skeyhillcorroboratedthisconviction,beginningthe“autobiography” withchaptersonthehistoric“longhunters”ofFentressCounty,Tennessee,outliningYork’spioneerancestorsand“purestock,”andrelatingfamily stories of Daniel Boone. Only by chapter 14 does Skeyhill describe York’s youth and boyhood. The narrative describes York’s pacifism, his resistancetowarandeventualconversion,hiswarcareer,andhisreturn toFentress.Herejectedalleffortstocommercializehisfame,including anoffertoactinHollywood,andhereturnedtothepeacefulanonymity oflifeinthemountains.Theaccountportraysthewarasmerelyaninter-
TheLastoftheLongHunters 239
ruptionwithnolastingeffectonthisold-fashionedAmericanhero.The counterpointbetweenYork’sfameasatraditionalheroandhisdesireto returntoapioneeringpastalsocapturedthenation’sownfeelingabout thewar’seffectonmodernAmerica.AshistorianT.J.JacksonLearshas pointedout,Americanshavealwaysmaintainedanantagonisticattitude towardmodernityandindustrialdevelopment.31ThisconflictwasespeciallyevidentinthelanguagewithwhichthecannySkeyhillrepresented York. In1930SkeyhillpublishedYork’sofficialbiography,tellinglysubtitledTheLastoftheLongHunters,therebysolidifyingYork’sclaimasadescendantofDanielBoone.32YetevenasSkeyhillemphasizedthe“pure” Anglo-SaxonandpioneerbloodintheTennesseebackwoodsman’sveins, Skeyhill’snotionofYork’splaceinhistoryretainedtheuneasilysubjective quality of postwar American historiography and anticipated the tone of manyHollywoodhistoricalfilms.“SergeantYork’slifestoryisoneofthe greateststoriesintheworldtoday,”hewrote.“Itisstrangerthanfiction, strangerthanlifeitself,andjustasintangible.EdgarAllen[sic]Poe,nor H.G.WellsnorDumaswouldhavedaredtocreatesuchacharacter.”33 That same year, Fred Pasley, another journalist-turned-biographer, said muchthesamethingwhenattemptingtosummarizeAlCapone’shistoricalappeal.Itwasasubtlewayofattributingmoderneventsandpeople with an unruly and subjective power that defied the bloodless conventions of traditional historiography. For these historians, creative imaginationwasnecessarytounderstandandinterpretYorkandCapone.Yet Yorkwasnotoneofthosemodernheroeswhooperatedinacorruptand hostileworld.Ittookanalmostfictionalimaginationtoconceiveofhim preciselybecausehewaslikeadisplacedpioneerhero—apartofAmerica’slegendaryheritage.Skeyhillspentthebulkofhisbiographytracing York’spioneeringancestorsandremarkedinonedefinitivepassagethat “thelogcabinsofthepioneersweretheoutpostsofcivilization.Theytell moreplainlythanthehistoriantheheroicstoryoftheconqueringofthe wilderness.Theyaredistinctly,uniquelyAmerican.Manyofthegreatest Americansthateverlivedwerebornwithintheirrough-hewnwalls.AbrahamLincoln,AndrewJackson,DanielBoone,DavidCrockett,andSam Houstonfirstsawthelightofdayinlogcabins.”AsSkeyhillnarratedit, York’schildhoodwasspentwithhisparentstellinghimfamilystoriesof thesepioneers“asthoughtheystilllived.”ForYork,thepastwasnotdead; itwasliterallythecontemporarytextonwhichhebasedhislife.Americanhistory“wastheirpatrimony.”34Yorkneverlearnedthishistoryfrom books;instead,helearneditorallyasafamilytradition.
240 VeteransofDifferentWars
IfYork’searlylifereadslikeamodernAmericanmythwherehistoricalpersonagesflitinandoutofpastandpresenttensesandthemountain menliveinatimelessfrontierlandscapeuntouchedbyindustrialismor specificdates,thenSkeyhill’saccountofYork’swarexperiencewaswritten as a deliberate contrast. His exploits in the Argonne forest, of such epicproportionsthat“atfirsteventheofficersrefusedtobelieveit,”are examinedwithscrupulousandevendocumentaryattention.Skeyhillfirst quotedthe“officialstory”fromAmericanwarrecordsandthestatements of confirmation made by members of his company; then he compared thesewithYork’sownstatementmadeshortlyaftertheevents.Skeyhill quotedextensivepassages,andtherewerenodiscrepanciesinthedocuments.HavingwonsuchhistoricfameinEurope,withhisquietreturn toFentressCountyin1919,Yorkbecamepartofanevenmoreillustrious company. Fentress County, untouched by the modern world, was, forSkeyhill,thecradleoftheAmericanpioneer:“ThisisthelandofpioneersandoftheLongHunters.AlvinYorkistheirlinealdescendant.He is an eighteenth-century character living in the twentieth century, and hasbeenfittinglyreferredtoas‘oneofourcontemporaryancestors.’The mantleofBooneandCrockett,ofHoustonand‘OldHickory,’hasfallen onworthyshouldersinAlvinCullumYork,theLastoftheLongHunters.”35Skeyhill’swasacuriousmetaphor,linkingYorktoJamesFenimore Cooper’smostfamoushistoricalnovel,TheLastoftheMohicans:ANarrativeof1757.WhereasCooperintendedhisnoveltobereadasacorrectivetotraditionalhistory,SkeyhillandotherssawYork’sactuallifeasa metaphorforoneofthemosthallowedtraditionsinAmericanhistory:the pioneerhero.Withinafewshortyears,Yorkwastransformedintoaneighteenth-centurymyth.York’sconnectiontothepioneerheroesofthelast twocenturieswasessentialtohisscreenbiographybyHarryChandlee. TheSeptember1940temporaryscripttextforewordbegan,“WhenAmericawasyoung,onlythemostdaringpioneers—thefollowersofthelong hunters led by Daniel Boone—threaded these mountain labyrinths.”36 AlthoughthereferencetoBoonewaslatercurbed,theopeningforeword stillannouncedYorkastheinheritorofthepioneer’smantle,relatingthe GreatWarstorytothenation-buildingstrugglesofourancestors. Although a number of westerns, mainly by Warner Brothers, had stressedthedeterminationandtoughnessofthenineteenth-centuryAmericanpioneers,itwasHollywood’span-studioinvolvementinmarshaling the formative defensive period in America’s past from the colonial era throughtheRevolutionaryWarandtheWarof1812thattrulycaptured thecontemporarywaraims.EvenintheGreatWarandthemoderneras
TheLastoftheLongHunters 241
ofYork’slife,filmmakersignoredanydivisiveandbewilderingtransformationsinfavorofrecountingthepioneermyth.LaskyandWarnerBrothers’ filmdrewonanimpressivebodyofhistoricalpicturesthatdescribedthe unificationofthenationintimesofoppression. In 1936 both Daniel Boone and Hawkeye returned to American theaters.AlthoughBoonehadappearedinMGM’sTheGreatMeadow in 1931, RKO’s small production Daniel Boone was the first sound-era Boonebiopic.StarringGeorgeO’Brien,thefilmcontinuedRKO’seconomicalbiographicalworkinAnnieOakleyandTheArizonian.Although itbeganwithalengthytextforeworddeclaring,“NofigureinearlyAmericanhistorystandsoutmoreheroicallythanDanielBoone,”theproduction’shistoricaltrappingscoveredonlyoneepisodeinhislife,a1775trek with settlers to Kentucky. Contrary to what many film historians have asserted, classical Hollywood films of this era were not solely preoccupiedwithgreatmen.37DanielBoone’snamewasnotasufficientdrawfor audiences,andthefilmhadaninsignificantrun.Instead,audiencespreferredtowatchthegormandizinggood-timerJimBrady(DiamondJim), theromanticescapadesofPeggyEaton(TheGorgeousHussy),thewild lifeofSanFrancisco’sBarbaryCoast(TheBarbaryCoast,SanFrancisco), andthegaudyBroadwayofarch-philandererFlorenzZiegfeld(TheGreat Ziegfeld).Thesewerehardlytheprofessionalhistorians’chosennational figuresandevents.Thebrandoftraditionalheroismwouldnotregainfilmmakingstatusforseveralyears.Eighteenth-centuryhistoryandpioneers werenotthefocusofHollywood’sprestigioushistoricalcycle.Although TheLastoftheMohicanswasoneofthemostrespectedhistoricalfilms ofthisperiod,EdwardSmall’sproductionwasnotanodetothefictional heroNattieBumpo(Hawkeye).Deeplyindebtedtotheearlytraditionsof historicalfilmmaking,SmallandhisfilmmakerstoldahistoryofBritish andAmericanrelationsin1757,ratherthanaclassicmythofAmerica. Toward the end of the decade, several major American historical filmsfocusedontheeighteenth-centurypioneerandhisconnectionsto theAmericanRevolutionandnationmaking.ButfilmssuchasRKO’sAlleghenyUprising(1939),MGM’sNorthwestPassage(1940),andTwentiethCentury–Fox’sDrumsalongtheMohawk(1939)wereseenasvehicles forcontemporarypoliticalpropaganda,andthestudioscutanyexcessive anti-Britishsequences.InAlleghenyUprising,theBritishgovernmentbeganasthecolonials’enemy.AfterfightingforthekingintheFrenchand IndianWar,theyareenragedwhenthegovernmentignorestheirappeal forhelpagainstraids.Thebureaucracyissocorruptthatarmssmugglers managetoselltheirwarestothetribesindefianceofBritishlaw.Lawhas
242 VeteransofDifferentWars
simplylostitsmeaning.FromthemomentP.J.Wolfson’sscreenplayshows aBritishofficerattemptingtocourt-martialJimSmith(whohasbeena captiveforseveralyears)asadeserter,theBritishgovernmentprovesits ineptandobsoletemanagementoftheNewWorld.Veryquickly,theBritishbecomethestandardagainstwhichSmithandhisBlackBoyspittheir rebellionandthegrowingdefinitionofAmericanism. The film’s indictment of the British was so strong that in the 1940 rereleaseandBritishversions,RKOorderedWolfsontorewritetheopeningforeword,whitewashingthefilm’snewcriticalhistory.Roosevelthad strengthenedtiestotheformerimperialgovernors,andby1940,itwas less advisable to show American patriotism in conflict with British interests. “This is a tale,” it began, “laid in the Allegheny Mountains, of JimSmithandhisBlackBoys,loyalsubjectsofHisMajestyKingGeorge III—andtheirfightagainsttheDelawareIndiansintheyear1759.”Unfortunately,thepoliteforeworddidnotfitthenarrative,evenwhenRKO cutseveralscenesofBritishpigheadednessandoutrightbrutality.Butthe executivesneededtosalvagewhattheycouldofforeignprofits;Britain andtheempireconstitutedoneofthefewstableforeignmarketsleftto Hollywoodfilmsin1939,andRKOneededtheoverseasproceeds.With GeorgeSchaeferinchargeofproduction,RKOhadconstructedarisky andexpensiveprestigelineup(purchasingAbeLincolninIllinoisandhiringOrsonWelles).RKO’spolicyofhistoricalinnovationwastooexpensiveandpartiallysuccumbedtothepressuresofnationalpolicyandfiscal necessity. MGM had more success cementing American-British relations in an adaptation of Kenneth Roberts’s colonial tale Northwest Passage.38 InproducingRoberts’spopularhistoricalnovel,Hollywood’swealthiest studioavoidedRKO’spracticeofdevelopinguntouchedandpotentially controversial revolutionary heroes, as well as Wolfson’s predilection for rebelsandlawlessmavericksasthedefinitiveAmericanheroes.Northwest Passage’ssettingwasfarenoughfromtheRevolutiontoavoidanyAngloAmerican spats. As Indian fighter Rogers growls to his fractious Rangers,“You’renotAmericansandyou’renotBritish—you’reRangers.”The problemwithNorthwestPassagewasthatittooktwoyearsandmorethan adozenwriterstocompletethescript.39Thescreenwriters’majorefforts weredevotedtoadaptingRoberts’senormousnarrative,nottohistorical embellishmentsorportentousforewords;theproducerssimplycouldnot agree on the basic narrative.40 As film historian Rudy Behlmer noted, despitetheconsiderableresourcesthatHollywood’swealthieststudioexpendedforlong-termlocationshoots,itspentnearlyasmuchonhiring
TheLastoftheLongHunters 243
andrehiringwritersforextensiverewrites.41NorthwestPassagecosttwice asmuchastheaverageAmericanhistoricalfilm(nearly$3million),and althoughaudiencesandexhibitorswererelativelyhappywithit,wasnot anunusualsuccess.42 ItisdifficulttoimagineMGM’stroublesaffectingDarrylF.Zanuck’s productions.OfalltheHollywoodstudios,TwentiethCentury–Foxhad thefewestproblemswhenconstructingahistoricalfilm.Thiswasduein largeparttoZanuck’sclearvisionforhisstudio’sdevelopingproductions and,asNunnallyJohnsonremarked,Zanuck’srespectforscreenwriters. Overthepastseveralyears,Zanuckhadinitiatedfilmconfrontationswith America’smorecontroversialhistoricalfigures,butbylate1939,evenhe waspersuadedtoplacearchetypalAmericanheroeswithinaframework ofhistoricalcompromise.ShortlybeforeMargaretMitchellpublishedthe spectacularanddivisiveGonewiththeWind,WalterD.EdmondspublishedhishistoricalnovelDrumsalongtheMohawk,thestoryofayoung NewYorkcouple’srepeatedattemptstosettletheirlandintheMohawk ValleyduringtheRevolutionaryWar.43Thestudioquicklypurchasedthe screenrights,addingthestorytoitsprestigelineup.By1939,Zanuckwas preparedtocastHenryFondaasGilbertMartin.Fonda’slastthreefilms forTwentiethCentury–Fox—JesseJames,TheStoryofAlexanderGraham Bell,andYoungMr.Lincoln—hadcementedhimasamajorstudiostar andearnedhimacclaimforcreatingavarietyofAmericanhistoricalroles (FrankJames,ThomasWatson,andAbrahamLincoln).GilbertMartin wastobeFonda’sfirstfictionalperiodroleforthestudioinayear,but extantproductionrecordsattestthatZanuckwasgoingthroughoneofhis periodsofhistoricalangst. Zanuck first hired Bess Meredith to adapt the novel and then WilliamFaulknertowritethescript,butFaulkner’sepisodiccountrytaleand denselydialoguedscriptwasquicklyturnedovertooccasionalhistorical screenwriterSonyaLevien(InOldChicago).44Levien,nodoubtfamiliar withtheAmericanhistoricalbiasinZanuck’sproductionline,readEdmonds’sfictionalnarrativeandMeredith’smeticulouscondensationand constructedherscriptasahistoricaldocument.45Unlikethebeginning ofthenovel,sheplannedtofadeinonacloseshotoftheopeningparagraph of the Declaration of Independence and then include a lengthy expositoryconversationbetweenscoutMartinandGeneralHerkheimer, commanderoftherebelmilitia.Thegistoftheencounteroutlinesthe settlers’majordifficulties:thecolonialgovernmentrefusestosendtroops west to protect the settlers and expects the impoverished farmers and militia to fight the British and the Native Americans, tend their crops,
244 VeteransofDifferentWars
and produce enough tax money for the new government. Martin and Herkheimerarefurious,andthegeneraldictatesanappropriateletterto thepoliticians:“Thewishofourheartsistoraiseenoughwheattofeed our army, but if you don’t help us, you can tear up the Declaration of Independence and save yourself the trouble of the Revolution because you ain’t—aren’t going to win. Soldiers can’t fight on empty stomachs, Governor,andvictorydependsonusfarmers!”46Thiswasevidentlytoo criticalofthefoundingfathersforZanuck.Hecrossedoutthefirsttwelve pagesofLevien’sprologueanddirectedhertobeginthescriptwithGilbertandLana’smarriageinAlbany,freeofthepoliticalconflictsofthe Revolution. Already Zanuck was planning to replace Levien and have TrottiorDunnesimplifythenarrative.Hewantednotacriticalhistorical film but a “great simple love story of pioneers.”47 Zanuck also cut Levien’sadditionalcriticismsofthecolonialgovernmentbyHerkheimer, whocalledthelegislators“dough-faced,pot-belliedwar-winners,”dithererswhoonlycrippledWashington’seffortswithineffectivemilitarysupply.48ItwasacuriousandsomewhatuncharacteristicchoiceforZanuck onahistoricalpicture—afterall,hehadopenlycourtedcontroversyin Americanhistorythroughouthiscareer.Butafterreadingherscript,he wrote,“Whereverpossible,keepBritishoutofbrutalityandblameallon IndiansandTories.”49ZanuckintendedDrumsalongtheMohawktobea patrioticromance,notacriticalpieceofAmericanhistory. Zanuck’s vision of Drums along the Mohawk as a romantic period dramaratherthanLevien’sdenselydocumentedhistoricalscreenplaywas arguablyclosertoEdmonds’sintent.AlthoughEdmondsclaimedinan author’snotethatahistoricalnovelistpossessed“agreateropportunityfor faithfulrepresentationofabygonetimethanahistorian”becauseofhis attentiontotheprosaicdetailsofeverydaycolonialexistence,hewasnot asinterestedintruehistoriography’spreoccupationwith“causeandeffect”presented“throughthelivesandcharactersof‘famous’or‘historical’ figures.”50 Not all historical novelists believed this. Margaret Mitchell’s contemporaneous Gone with the Wind managed to convey the lives of southernwomenfrom1861to1873throughacause-and-effectstudyof theCivilWar,itsaftermath,anditseffectonmajorcharactersfromScarlett O’Hara to Generals John B. Gordon and Nathan Bedford Forrest. Mitchell’snovel,althoughfocusingon“fictional”characters,contained extensivediegeticandnondiegeticdiscussionofhistoricalevents,crises, and arguments. Documents were evaluated; historical positions were criticized. Edmonds’s novel, in contrast, consisted mostly of dialogue amongthecharactersandinteriormonologues.Directreferencestothe
TheLastoftheLongHunters 245
“damned Yankee-controlled Congress” were scarce, and Edmonds, unlikeMitchell,didnotexplorecongressionalinefficiencyandcorruption withthethoughtfulanddirectdiscourseofthehistorian.Instead,Gilbert and Lana witnessed paymasters defrauding militia widows of their husbands’payandthegovernmentovertaxingthesettlerseventhoughthe armyhadconsistentlyfailedtoprotectthem.51Broaderhistoricalissues appearedindirectly. Zanuck was certainly justified in seeing the novel as a romance. It begannotwithadescriptionofahistoricaldocumentbutwithGiland Lana’s postnuptial trip to German Flats. After cutting Meredith’s and Levien’sversions,theproducerhiredLamarTrotti,ascreenwriterknown principallyforhishistoricalwork,toplotthescript.Ratherthanexpunging the historical framework, Zanuck wanted someone to manage Edmonds’sindirectbutpotentiallyexplosivejabsatthecolonialgovernment and theBritish.Levien’sscriptenhancedmanyof Edmonds’s sly barbs directedatthefecklesscolonialgovernment,itsneglectofthesettlers,and itsearlyloveofcollectingtaxes.ThebrashGeneralHerkheimerandMrs. McKlennararticulatedwhatEdmondshadvaguelyimplied.YetZanuck excised these in his plan to represent early America. For the producer, thecolonialgovernmenthadtoremainbeyondreproach,andtheBritish (whowererapidlybecomingAmerica’salliesinthenewspapers)wereto bealmostnonexistentenemies.Hereplacedredcoatsandpoliticaland militaryconflictwithredskinsandromance. ZanuckoutlinedhisviewinaconferenceinApril1939:“Thisbook shouldbedramatizedforthescreeninthesamemannerthataplaywright woulddramatizeitforthestage.Wemustnotletourselvesbeboundby thecontentsofthebook—butsimplyretainthespiritofthebook...we areinthebusinessTOGIVEASHOW....Wereweboundbysome specificworld-famousevent,ourproblemswouldbemoredifficult—but herewehaveasuccessfulbookandthatisall.”52Henonethelesswanted thefilmadaptationtoapproximatetheprestigeofhislastAmericanhistorical films, among them In Old Chicago, Alexander’s Ragtime Band, andTheStoryofAlexanderGrahamBell.Ineffect,Zanuckwantedthe feelofahistoricalperiodwithouttheconstraintsofamajorhistoricalfilm. Levien’sforewordsweretobedroppedandtheromanceaccelerated.In spite of the film’s latter-day reputation as a pillar of American political ideology,53Zanuckspecificallyorderedanyovertpatrioticdiscoursetobe cut.“Whateverpatriotismcomesthroughshouldcomefrominference— lettheaudiencewriteintheflag-wavingforthemselves,”heordered.Yet Zanuckwassly;heinsistedthatTrotticutoutanyobviousgibesatthe
246 VeteransofDifferentWars
revolutionarygovernmentinEdmonds’sbookandLevien’searlyscript. WhenTrottihadfinished,ZanuckhandedthescriptovertoJohnFord, whohadjustfinishedshootingTrotti’sYoungMr.Lincoln.Inspiteofhis antihistoricalattitudeinconferences,Zanuckgavethestorytoapairof provenAmericanhistoricalfilmmakers.Yettheproducermaintaineda growingdeterminationtoreducetheimpactofhistoryonscreenentertainment,perhapsawarethattheAmericanhistoricalcyclewasheaded towarditscriticalandaudiencesaturationpointby1940. Upon its release, Drums along the Mohawk had two modes of cinematic responses. On the one hand, it was advertised as a “historical melodrama,”aRevolutionaryWarepicrestoringtoimportancetheanonymousfarmer-heroesofthewar.GilbertMartin,howeverfictional,stood formuchofwhatthecommonAmericanhadenduredin1776—thederelictcolonialgovernment,theBritishoppression,theIndianraids.Yetin thefinalframesofthefilm,Martin’smissiontofindtherebelarmyand bringittothebesiegedfortsucceeds.Anewflag,symbolicofthenew nation,fliesoverthefort.Ontheotherhand,thenarrativewasacollaborativeinventionofEdmondsandTwentiethCentury–Foxfilmmakers. GilMartinisnoWashingtonorFranklin,andhiswifeLanaisnoMolly PitcherorBetsyRoss,butintryingtodescribethelivesandfearsofthousands of colonial farmers, Martin’s anonymity is an affecting historical choice.Andthisishowthecriticsreceivedthefilm.Varietywrotethat DrumsalongtheMohawknarratedthetale“ofpioneerAmericanhomemakingandnation-buildingalongthecolonialfrontier,”“tellingataleof patriotismwhenpatriotismwasasimple,elementalthingofgettingdown theflintlockanddefendingaman’shouseamidsttheclearings,hisfamily andhisneighborsagainstToryintrigue,subsidizedtomahawksandflametipped arrows.”54 Like any prestigious historical film, the script’s craftsmanshipreceivedspecialcommendation.Zanuck’sattemptstomodulate thehistoryseemtohavefailed,yetsomereviewsweredistinctlywearyof thethemeofsettlersversusIndians.55Ithadbecomeanall-too-familiar part of Hollywood’shistory,principallybecauseitwas told in the same way. Perhaps the reviews would have been less indifferent had Zanuck retained Levien’s or even Trotti’s criticisms of the British and colonial governments.However,evenColumbia’srarehistoricaleffort,TheHowardsofVirginia,whichdidcriticizebothToriesandtheraciallythwarted conceptofAmericanliberty,failedattheboxofficein1940.56 Afewmonthslater,MGM’sNorthwestPassagereceiveditsjadedreviews.ItsfantasticexpenseandflounderingscriptrecalledTheBigTrail’s receptionsometenyearsearlier.Lateinproduction,directorKingVidor
TheLastoftheLongHunters 247
(whohadreplacedW.S.VanDyke)attemptedtoplacethefilmwithin thetraditionofrecentlyreleasedAmericanrevolutionaryproductionsby writingaforewordthatproclaimedthatAmericanhistory“madesimple men,unknowntohistory,intogiantsindaringandendurance.”57However,neitherauthorRobertsnorthepubliclikedthefilmorrespectedits historicaldiscourse.Peoplewereundoubtedlywearyoftheonslaughtof pretentious historical films that celebrated a pioneer narrative formula thatwasalreadynumbinglyfamiliarin1940. EvenZanuckwascuttingcornersby1940.InJuly,inanotetoKennethMacgowanandWilliamKoenig,ZanuckdirectedthemtokeepproductioncostsdownonHudson’sBay(1940):“Thismeansthatyouhave tocutcornersineverydirection...fromthestandpointofproduction, sets,costumesandlocations,Iwantthispicturetobea‘cheater.’...Ido notwantalotofextravagantorelaborateplansmadeforthepictureinadvancethatwillonlyhavetobethrownouteventually.”58Laterthatmonth, theleaderinAmericanhistoricalproductionsfumed,“ThefailureofEdisontheBoy,ofEdisontheMan...andtheonlymildsuccessofAlexanderGrahamBellemphasizesagainthefactthatwheneverwedealwith subjectsortitlesofthisnaturethereisalwaysagravedangerofkeeping peopleawayfromthetheatrewhoarelookingforentertainmentinstead ofeducation,whowantashowinsteadofenlightenment.”59Zanuckknew thatTwentiethCentury–Fox’sless-than-stellargrossin1939wasduein parttotheexpensiveAmericanhistoricalfilmshehadreleased.60KnowingthatMGMhadalsolostmoneybycopyinghisbiographicalfilmsdid noteasethesting;MGMcouldaffordanexpensivefailureortwo.AsNew YorkTimescriticFrankNugentnotedin1940,thecycleofAmericanhistoricalepicswasbeginningtopall,mainlydueto“dog-earedscript[s].”61 Afterobservingthe1939and1940Hollywoodseasons,LeoRosten,never afanofZanuck’s,wascaustic:“Theproducer,steepedintheHollywood tradition, headstrong with authority, often makes decisions which are psychologicallygratifyingratherthaneconomicallywise.Million-dollar moviesaresometimesanexpressionofaproducer’segoratherthanhis businessjudgment.Foritisprofoundlysatisfyingtoproducemovieson animmenseanddazzlingscale.ReputationsaremadeinHollywoodby movies,notbalancesheets.”62 By1940,Zanuckhadmadehisreputation;nowheneededmoney. Buthewasnottheonlyfilmmakeraffectedbyaudienceindifferenceand critical sneers. Earlier in 1938 and 1939, when Hollywood did depart from conventional historical narratives, the filmmakers were often met with resistance, revision, or incomprehension. Only Sergeant York met
248 VeteransofDifferentWars
withcriticalandbox-officesuccess.AlthoughAlvinYork’stalewasdeeply linked to the tradition of American pioneer history, and in spite of the factthatWarnerBrothers’filmmakersconstructedhisscreenlifewithan impressivearrayofprintedtextinsertsandpioneerreferences,Yorkwas amandealingwithtwentieth-centuryconflicts.Sincehisexploitswere onlyagenerationold,hewasfamiliartothepresentgenerationoffilmgoers.Wecter’scanonicalbookofAmericanheroesputhiminthesamecategoryasDanielBoone,Lincoln,andBuffaloBill,butYork,atraditional hero,stillhadtosufferthroughthetwentiethcentury’sgreatestcalamity. Hollywood was free to draw on Skeyhill’s helpful historical metaphors without condemning the narrative to the staleness of Drums along the MohawkandNorthwestPassage.WhenYorkhuntedIndiansorwentout on a “turkey shoot,” he bagged Germans, a pastime that Americans in 1918and1941couldunderstand.
Part Five
Hollywood History
This page intentionally left blank
9
StarsBornandLost, 1932–1937 Mosthistoryisautopsy.Thisoneisvivisection. —TerryRamsaye,AMillionandOneNights,1926
In 1931 Clara Bow, arguably Paramount Studios’ most famous and exploitedactress,wasravagedintheragpressduringaprolongedandviciousslandersuit.1Althoughshereturnedbrieflytothescreentomake thesuccessfulCallHerSavage(1932)andHoopla(1933)forFox,Bow hadlostherjoyoffilmmaking.Andinspiteofherconsiderablepowers asanactress,hermultiplepublicandpersonalbattleshaddevastatedher box-officereputation.In1933,despitepleasfromloyalfriends,ClaraBow retiredfromthescreen. Surprisingly,oneofherstaunchestsupporterswasproducerDavidO. Selznick,whohadgottentoknowBowwellafewyearspreviouslywhen theyhadbothworkedatParamountforthedictatorialB.P.Schulberg. KnownasoneofHollywood’stoughestandmostfinanciallycannyfilmmakers,SelznicknonethelessdefendedBow’sreputationintheindustry, andafterheleftParamounttoheadproductionatRKO,heplannedanew filmforherbasedonherlife.HecabledtheNewYorkoffices,“Suggest sensationalcomebackforClaraBowinaHollywoodpicturetitledThe TruthAboutHollywood.FeelverystronglyanyobjectionstoHollywood storyassuchhavenobasiswhatever.”2Thefilmwouldeventuallybereleasedin1932asWhatPriceHollywood?althoughthepricewastoohigh for the studio to chance casting Bow. Selznick’s script, developed from 251
252 HollywoodHistory
ClaraBowinCallHer Savage(1932;with GilbertRoland).
AdelaRogersSt.Johns’soriginalstory,dealtellipticallywiththeeventsof Bow’smeteoricrisetofameandherheartbreakingretirement. Selznick’smotivationwasnotsolelyhisfriendshipwithBowandhis regretaboutherdeterioratingemotionalstate.Hehadseenbeforehow cruelHollywoodcritics,producers,directors,exhibitors,andthepublic couldbe.Oneoftheearliestvictimshadbeenhisownfather,producer LewisJ.Selznick,anearlysilentfilmpioneer.TheelderSelznick’sprofligacy and constant search for novelty and innovation had bankrupted hisfilmcompany.Whenhisprincipalrivals,LouisB.MayerandAdolph Zukor,refusedtohelp,theircutthroatcompetitionhastenedhiscollapse. After1923,SelznickSr.wouldneveragainworkinthefilmindustry.Years later,youngDavidgrittedhisteethandwenttoworkfortheverymenresponsibleforhisfather’sdemise.HisbitternesstowardHollywoodexecutivedom,towardthetown’sshortmemoryandwillingnesstoforgetthepast inordertomakethenextpicture,neverlefthim.Manyofhisprojectsat MGM,Paramount,RKO,andSelznickInternationalPictureswouldbe periodfilmswithvaryingdegreesofhistoricalspecificity,buttheywerealwaysinfusedwithapowerfulsenseofnostalgiaandloss(ForgottenFaces, 1928; The Four Feathers, 1929; Little Women, 1933; Manhattan Melodrama, 1934; A Tale of Two Cities, 1935; The Prisoner of Zenda, 1937; GonewiththeWind,1939).
StarsBornandLost 253
DavidO.Selznick(right) withhisfather,Lewis J.Selznick(center). (Author’scollection)
Yet as vice president in charge of production at RKO in 1931 and 1932, Selznick was easily bored with filming the established history of theUnitedStates.Filmssuchasthe Cimarronknock-offTheConquerors(1932),acutelyconsciousofitshistoricalimportanceandladenwith textualdocumentation,lefthim“flat.”3Histruehistoricalinterestwasin Hollywood—hisperiod,thelatesilentandearlysounderas.Hehadlived through the great events of that age, but the total conversion to sound hadrendereditalostera,cutofffromthedemandsofmodernfilmmaking.InHollywood’shistoricalparlance,thesilenterawas“finished,”and Selznick endured the consequences of outliving it. For Selznick, even more than for contemporary film historian Terry Ramsaye, films about Hollywoodhistorywouldbepainfulandpersonalvivisections,notautopsies.AlthoughHollywood’sinvestmentinprestigioushistoricalfilmshad reconstructedestablished,heroicperiodsofnationalhistorysuchasthe Revolution(AlexanderHamilton,1931),theWest(TheBigTrail,1930; Cimarron, 1931), and the Civil War (Only the Brave, 1930; Abraham Lincoln, 1930), as the 1930s progressed, Selznick became more aware thatheandClaraBowwerelivingrelicsofapassingerainmotionpicturehistory.Inspiteofcinema’srelativeyouthasanart—apointintoned frequentlybynationalandindustrialcritics—theproducerwasgrowing olderinatownthatforgotandreinventeditsownpastquiteeasily.He thusmadeanimportantanduniquedecisiontoremembernotonlyLewis J.SelznickandClaraBowbutalsothelivesandcareersofFrankFayand BarbaraStanwyck,JohnBowersandMargueritedelaMotte,JohnGilbertandVirginiaBruce,JohnMcCormickandColleenMoore,Marshall “Mickey”Neilan,JohnBarrymore,MabelNormand,GretaGarbo,Glo-
254 HollywoodHistory
riaSwanson,andJeanHarlow.4Selznick’sattitudetowardthedyingage ofoldHollywoodwasnotoneconstructedofpioneeringgloryandheroic careers,ahistoriographicframethatcouldfiteasilyoverafrontierepic orabiographyofLincoln.Instead,itwasacourageousattempttoface Hollywood’s failures and the industry’s almost historical compulsion to makeobsoleterelicsoutofitslivingfilmmakers.5
EarlyHollywoodHistories Selznickhadworkedatthetwobiggestandmostlavishstudios,MGM andParamount,beforeacceptingRKO’soffertoheadproduction.RKO was certainly smaller scale, but its compact operations suited Selznick andhisgrowingobsessionwithcompleteproductioncontrolatboththe studioandtheindividualunitlevel.TherewerenorivalssuchasB.P. SchulbergorIrvingThalbergtotakeprecedence;atRKO,Selznickcould oversee every element of studio production: choose, develop, criticize, andleavehismarkonfilmstyle.UndoubtedlythinkingofDarrylF.Zanuck’searlyfinancialandcriticalsuccesseswithgangsterfilms,Selznick wrotetothestudio’sNewYorkofficeinMarch1932urgingittomakeThe TruthaboutHollywoodandestablishRKO’spreeminenceinanewcycle ofHollywoodhistoryfilms.“Reasonwhyweareattailendofcycles,”he cabled,“isobjectiontodeparturessuchasHollywoodstory,whichstory givesusopportunitytoleadfield.” The last prestigious films about Hollywood, Rupert Hughes’s Souls for Sale (Goldwyn, 1923) and James Cruze’s Paramount extravaganza Hollywood(1923),hadbeenreleasednearlyadecadebefore.Neitherhad beenconceivedasahistoricalfilmorevenathinlydisguisedbiography ofanactualstar,yetbothmayhavebeenplannedtoretrievethescandalousreputationHollywoodhadacquiredinthepasttenyears.AsRobert E.Sherwoodremarkedinonereview,aftertheFattyArbuckle“orgy”that resultedinthedeathofstarletVirginiaRappeandthemysteriousshooting of director Desmond Taylor, “Hollywood became the most notoriouscommunityonthefaceoftheearth,beingassociatedinthepublic mindwithsuchhistoricboroughsasNineveh,Tyre,Babylon,Sodomand Gomorrah.”6 Souls for Sale attempted to present a sympathetic portrait of a struggling actress’s career and the sacrifices she makes in order to reachstardom.Itwasaformulamanycriticshadseenadnauseam,but Goldwyn’sfilmusedglamorousproductionvaluestoobscurethecontemporary“trivial”narrative.Ifnothingelse,itwasanentertaining“Cook’s Touroftheempireofcelluloidia.”7
StarsBornandLost 255
Hollywood dazzled audiences with glimpses of Douglas Fairbanks, MaryPickford,CecilB.DeMille,andGloriaSwansonintheirownenvironment,butthisorgyofstar-spottingonlyaddedtothefilm’sattraction asanaccurate,up-to-the-minutedocumentoftheAmericanmotionpicturebusiness.8FrankCondon’soriginalstorybrokewiththetraditional mythoftheyoungactress’srisetofame;instead,itpresentedamoreaccuratetaleofprettyyoungAngelaWhitaker’srepeatedfailuretoachieve stardom.Directorsignoredher,butWilliamC.DeMille(Cecil’solder brother)madehercrotchetygrandfatherasuccessfulcharacteractor.AlthoughitwasafictionalstorysetincontemporaryHollywood,Condon’s narrative,scriptedbyTomGeraghty,notedtheconsequencesofHollywood’smanufacturedmyths.AccordingtoSherwood,“Angelahadbeen fedwithstoriesofgirlslikeherselfwhohadgonetothisstrangeplaceand achievedinstantaneoussuccess,”yetwhenshetriedtorepeattheformula, therealHollywoodrejectedher.9 AlthoughJamesCruzewouldmakehisnameasthestudio’sAmerican epic filmmaker, he did not make Hollywood into a historical film alongthelinesofTheCoveredWagon(1923)andhislatersuccessesPony Express (1925) and Old Ironsides (1926). Hollywood, critics responded, was“fantasyratherthanagrimlyrealisticdrama.”Evenby1928,when MGM released another major Hollywood story, Show People, the film industrystillhadnotmadea“Hollywoodepic”withalltheprestigeofmajorhistoricalfilms.10Duringthe1920s,therewasverylittleinterestand almostnoneedforHollywoodtoreflectonitspast.Andyet,Selznickmay wellhavehadCruze’sfilminmindwhenhemadehisdisguisedClara Bowpicture.OneofthemanycameosinHollywoodwasmadebyRoscoe “Fatty”Arbuckle,whosecareerhadbeendestroyedin1921whenhewas accusedofthesexualassaultandmurderofVirginiaRappe.InHollywood, hemadehiscameoin,ofallplaces,acastingoffice.Anoteinthescript indicatesthatthefilmmakershopedhispresencewouldbeunobtrusive andevenpoignant,butNewYorkTimescriticMordauntHallnoticedthe sequenceandwantedArbuckletostaywherehebelonged—offthescreen andinHollywood’spast.Hepredictedthatthefilm“willnotwhetpublic desirefor[Arbuckle’s]reintroductiontomotionpictureenthusiasts... nothingwouldbelostbyits[thescene’s]elimination.”11 In1932Selznickappropriatedthemomentaryimageofthedestroyed careerandthefinishedstar,butinsteadofrepeatingitasanunobtrusive cameo,hemadeitthecenterofhisnarrative.Hewasnotinterestedin making another Hollywood Cinderella myth, a recycled narrative with nonspecific elements and characters. Instead, he wanted financial and
256 HollywoodHistory
criticalprestige.Inordertogarnerthatkindofsuccessintheearlysound era,hehadtofollowthehistoricalproclivitiesandstructuresofhisrival DarrylZanuck.HetookeventsfrommodernHollywoodhistoryandretainedtheirhistoricalspecificity,memory-saturatedimages,andpotential forinstigatingpubliccontroversy.HisideatocastBowintheleadroleof AdelaRogersSt.Johns’sstory“TheTruthaboutHollywood”wouldhave addedaradicalhistoricaldimensiontotheevolvinggenreofAmerican historical film.12 St. Johns’s story loosely paralleled the major events of Bow’s own Hollywood career: her rise from an impoverished Brooklyn childhoodtoHollywoodsuperstardom,hersometimesperniciousmentorshipbyatightfistedproducer(Schulberg),herromanticinvolvement with a director (Victor Fleming), her sponging family and cronies, the socialsnubsshereceivedfromHollywood’selite,andthepubliccondemnationresultingfromanunfoundedscandalthatnearlyendedhercareer. YetthenarrativewasbynomeansafaithfulscreenbiographyofBowthat viewerscouldrecognizefromtheprecedentsofAbrahamLincolnorAlexanderHamilton.EventhoughBowwouldhardlyhaveobjectedtothe film’ssympatheticportrayalofherlifeorsuedRKOforlibel,Selznickhad torealize,howeverreluctantly,thatfanshadaslittledesiretoseeBowin apictureastheydidtoseeapictureabouther. InproducingWhatPriceHollywood?SelznickinstitutedanewcycleofhistoricallymindedHollywoodfilms,buttheywerebynomeans therigorouslystructured,meticulous,somewhatpompoushistoricalbiographicalofferingsthatfilmmakersandthepublicimmediatelyassociatedwith“prestige”and“highbrow”cinema.Oftentheseeighteenth-and nineteenth-century epics had a distinct historical advantage over their youngerimitators.Itpaidtobeaccuratewhenyouwerefilmingthelifeof awell-knownfigurelikeAbrahamLincolnoranationallychargedevent liketheCivilWar.Historicalsophisticationearnedfarmorecriticaland box-officeaccoladesthanpublicjeers.Evenifsomedateswerefudged, the studios won anyway—libel suits were next to impossible when the subject was dead. Living subjects, be they gangsters, shyster lawyers, or drunkendirectors,couldsuetheHollywoodlibelersandwin.Livingsubjectsalsorankledwiththecensors.ManyofthestoriesSelznickwanted toalludetomoredirectlyinthenarrative,suchasthecollapseofthecareersofClaraBow,MabelNormand,andMickeyNeilan,wouldawaken the censors and rake up memories of Hollywood’s wicked past. There weredrugandsexscandals;murder;andcareersdestroyedbyalcoholism, ego,LouisB.Mayer,studiolegerdemain,box-officedecline,sound,and slander—allmemoriesthatHollywoodwouldratherforget.ButSelznick
StarsBornandLost 257
wantedtorememberandtorecord,and,byharnessingthepublic’sappetiteformodernhistory,hewantedtoforcehisaudiencetoremember too. Likemodernganghistories,Hollywoodmeritedadifferentapproach towardthepast,arevisioningofmodernhistory.Superimposeddates,accuratenamesandevents,documentedconsequences—thiswasthestuff ofTerryRamsaye’sandBenjaminHampton’shistoriesoftheAmerican cinema,offilmreviewsandeventheinterviewsandproductionupdates inMovingPictureWorld,Photoplay,andModernScreen.13Coupledwith Selznick’sdrivetorememberandcommemoratewasthetown’sownreputation for artistic invention and commercial exploitation; of lies, halftruths,andexaggerationsdesignedtoforwardacareer;ofshortmemories and devastating dismissals. This combination, tentatively explored in WhatPriceHollywood?,wouldculminateinAStarIsBorn(1937)and theattainmentofavisualandtextualhistoricalfilmstyleforHollywood, aformthatwouldpushnarrativestothepointofviolentdeathtoforce Hollywoodandaudiencestosimplyremembertherealtragedyobscured throughascreenofcensorshipandindustrialamnesia. St.Johns,likeSelznick,alsocarriedmemoriesofavanishedHollywood.Writerandpublicist,itwasshewhohadhelpedtoinventtheLatin lovermystiqueofRudolphValentino,andthefabricationofValentino’s imageremainsthemostspectacularlysuccessfulstar-makingventurein Hollywoodhistory.14Butby1926,itwasover.ValentinodiedinNewYork of complications from appendicitis. St. Johns also witnessed the career ofClaraBowandbefriendedtheactressbrieflyafterinterviewingherfor Photoplayin1927.15Bow’sharrowingcandorconvincedSt.Johnstoprint theinterviewinthefirstperson.But,asBow’sbiographerDavidStenn noted,Hollywoodandaudiencesdidnotwanttohearthetruthaboutdestitution,abuse,familyinsanity,overwork,andloneliness.16Bow’struthfulness and lack of pretense ensured Hollywood’s scorn and Paramount’s neglectofherlucrativecareer.Inafewyears,thecareerofHollywood’s biggestbox-officedrawwouldbeover. With the advent of sound, the growing bureaucratization of studio production,andanewgenerationoflessimpressivestars,itwaseasyto understandSt.Johns’sviewofHollywoodinthepasttense.Armedwith memoriesofBowandotherruinedfilmmakers,shewroteastory,abehind-the-scenes look at Hollywood’s creation of a new actress and the decline of a director. She wrote of a young Brown Derby waitress, Diane,whobecomesastarunderthetutelageofafadingalcoholicdirector namedMaxCarey.AlthoughSt.Johnswasstillthemasterofglamorous
258 HollywoodHistory
subterfugeanddidnotnamenames,herprotagonistsareshorthandfor some of the industry’s most powerful filmmakers. Max Carey’s opinion ofHollywood,“Theonlythingthistownrespectsissuccess,”wouldbe echoed by silent directors Charles Chaplin, D. W. Griffith, and Erich vonStroheim.By1932,thistriumvirateofdirectorswouldnotorcould notmakeasuccessfulfilminthenewsounderaandwerepushedtothe margins.TherewasmorethanoneMaxCareyin1930sHollywood. St.Johnsalsoembeddedmanysubtlereferencestothecorrectprocedurefor“makingit”inHollywood.AfterDianemeetsCarey,shereturns tohershabbyapartmentandopensafanmagazine.Shestaresatapicture ofFoxstarJanetGaynorandstrugglestoimitateGaynor’swide-eyedinnocence.GaynorwasHollywood’sidealofthegirlnextdoor,asilentstar who,unlikeClaraBow,madethetransitiontosoundwithoutfussorscandal.Dianeknewwhatshewasdoing,tryingtoimitateGaynor.Yetwhen shedoesachievestardom,DianebecomesfamousasaBow-typevamp, andshesuffersthesamefateasthefamedpartygirl.LikeBow,Diane’s lower-class background and vamp pictures cause social Hollywood and theHollywood“ladies”toignoreher.Dianeraves,“EitherIgooutwith men—men—men—or I stay home. There are nice people here. Nice parties.Whydon’tIgetinvited?I’manoutsider.Ihateit.I’masgoodas anyofthem.”17 Thefinalscriptretainedtheyoungactress’simitationsofHollywood stars,butwithsomeslightalterations.Diane,nowMaryEvans(Constance Bennett),anamebefittingthenewhomegrownsimplicityinstarpersona, openshermagazineandseesaphotospreadforanewGretaGarbo–Clark Gablevehicle.ShefoldsawayGarbo’sportraitandplaysacheek-to-cheek scenewithGablebeforehermirror,adoptingtherequisiteexoticSwedish accent.MaryplaysasceneinspiredfromGarboandGable’smostrecent MGMsuccess,ironicallyentitledSusanLennox—HerFallandRise.Ina curiousbitofscreensleightofhand,Mary’sexperiencesbecomeareversalofSusanLennox’sscreenlife.UnlikethestandardHollywoodfictions thattoldofredemptionandeventualsuccess,inWhatPriceHollywood? Maryrisesandfalls,inthetraditionofrealHollywoodactorslikeClara Bow.SelznickandSt.Johnsplannednotriumphantreturntothescreen forMaryEvans. However,despitetheallusiontoGarboandGable,thefinalscript, variouslyworkedonbyMarjorieDudley,RobertPressnel,GeneFowler, Roland Brown, Jane Murfin, and Ben Markson, had few of the documentarytouchesassociatedwithprestigepictures.Thebitterspecificity Selznick had imagined in “The Truth about Hollywood” was virtually
StarsBornandLost 259
writtenoutofthefinalscript.Butthefinalfilmlookedsomewhatdifferent. In postproduction, Selznick added an opening title sequence that consistsofaseriesofmoviebillboards.Eachcreditisquicklyreplacedby another,introducingasenseofrestlessimpermanenceandobsolescence inHollywood’sattitudetowardthepast.ThefilmfadesinonConstance Bennett’shandflippingthroughherfanmagazine,skippingthroughan assemblylineofimagesandadvertisementsuntilshecomestothereal thing—GarboandGableinSusanLennox. Like the most prestigious films of that era, What Price Hollywood? employsaconsistentseriesoftextinserts.ButtheseareHollywooddocuments,bothprivate(filmcallsheetsandscriptinserts)andpublic(gossip columnsandexcerptsfromVariety).Curiously,thetextinsertsseemto pokefunatHollywoodtraditionsandtheindustry’sattemptsatprestige. ShortlyafterMaxCarey(playedbysometimedirectorLowellSherman) takesMarytoapremiere,adailyreads,“Careyinagain:MaxCareystole theBrownDerby’sprettiestwaitress.Whatfor?Oh,sameoldstory.Goingtoputherinpictures.”TheCinderellastoryisaratherbadjokein 1932,anoldclichéusedofteninHollywoodfilmsandfilmmagazines; itisadirtyoldexecutive’slinetoensnareaspiringyoungactresses.But CareydoesgiveMaryabreak—acoupleoflinesinhisnewfilm.Itstitle issuggestiveoftheabsurdlengthsstudioswouldgointhequestforglamour and sensationalism: Purple Flame. Soon after, as Mary rises in the publicity machine as “America’s Pal,” the papers document her public and private life in a series of inserts. Just as the papers write of Mary’s rise, they chronicle Max Carey’s decline. Too many florid failures like PurpleFlame,toomanyargumentswithphilistineproducers,toomany drinkstokillhisartisticambition,havemarkedCarey.OneofSelznick’s postproductionnewsinsertsreads,“ThenamesoncastsofcurrentPoverty RowproductionslookliketheWho’sWhoinFilmdomoftenyearsago.” Selznick’stextinsertsdrawattentiontothedeclineofoldHollywood,and later,asMaryiscrucifiedinthepennypressfollowingCarey’ssuicide,the produceraddsanotherclippingstraightfromClaraBow’scareer:anote thatthewomen’sclubsofAmericaarebanningherfilms. ShootingwrappedinApril1932,butSelznick’sadditionstothefilm inpostproductiondelayeditsgeneralreleaseuntilmid-July.Itwasahuge success, with many critics agreeing with Photoplay: “Almost everything inthispicturehasactuallyhappenedinHollywood.”18Selznickstarted the cycle he had dreamed of, but he dallied so long with the text insertsthatColumbiaandParamountwereabletoreleasetheirlow-budget imitations later that summer. Critics paid little attention to Hollywood
260 HollywoodHistory
SpeaksandMovieCrazy,however;VarietydismissedHollywoodSpeaks asacheap,fictionalglorificationoftheHollywoodsuccessstory.19Movie CrazyfulfilledSelznick’soriginalintentiontocastafadingstarinanew sound film about Hollywood, but even with Harold Lloyd heading the cast,MovieCrazylackedthenecessaryprestigetogarnermuchcriticalattention.DespiteconcentratingonbumblingHowardHall’sriseasacomicmoviestar,therewerefewparallelsbetweenthefilmandLloyd’sown distinguishedcareerasawriter-director-actor,norweretheretextinserts toreinforcethefilm’shistoricalaccountandthepassageoftime.In1932, likemanyofthesilentcomics,LloydwasonhiswayoutofHollywood, andMovieCrazylackedtheself-consciousimportancethatSelznickhad givenWhatPriceHollywood? YetbothWhatPriceHollywood?andMovieCrazyignoredthemost crucialexplanationforfailedcareers:stars’inabilitytocopewiththenew sound era. Bow’s hatred of the microphone was such that she even attackedoneduringatake.Lloyd’svoicemaynothaveendedhiscareer (he went on to make several more comedies), but his association with silentcomedywassostrongthatneitherhenoraudiencescouldadapt.In 1931filmhistorianBenjaminHamptonacknowledgedthatnoneofthe studioswasfinanciallycrippledbytheadventofsound,andtheaterearningsoffsetanydropinstudioprofits;yetfilmmakersbothaboveandbelow thetitlewereunpreparedforspeech.20Afterthenationalfrenzyforany talkingpicturedissipatedandargumentsforqualitygrew,thestudiosrealizedthatanewmediumrequirednewproducers,screenwriters,directors, andactors.Thecasualtiesofsoundweretoorecentandpainfulforeven Selznicktoapproach.
ComingtoTermswithHollywood’sHistory In early 1933 Selznick briefly pursued his fascination with star biographies,planningtoadaptZoeAkins’splayMorningGloryinordertoreteam Constance Bennett and Lowell Sherman. Bennett would reprise herroleasadeterminedrisingstar,butShermanwouldnolongerplay a cynical director—he would direct Morning Glory. However compellingitmayhaveseemedtoSelznicktocontinuethecycleofHollywood entertainmenthistorieswithBennett,heeventuallyassignedKatharine Hepburn to star in Morning Glory.21 In many ways, she was more appropriateintherole.Thescripttoldthesentimentaltaleofanobscure youngwoman’stenaciousrisetothetopinBroadway.Shehastalentand drive,butthequestionremains,willshebeamorninggloryfollowingher
StarsBornandLost 261
firstBroadwaysuccess?WithBennett—theoriginalhothouseHollywood star—in the lead, the film would have possessed little of the historical resonancethatSelznickattemptedtopursueinWhatPriceHollywood? ThescriptdidnotclaimtobetheunauthorizedbiographyofKatherine CornellorJeanneEagles,althoughonesourcesaidthatAkinshadmodeledthecharacteronayoungTallulahBankhead.Hepburn’sownslow startonBroadway,hereventualsuccess,andherquirkyYankeefemininitygaveMorningGlorythenecessaryhistoricalundercurrentstointrigue Selznick.Hepburnwas,afterall,hisdiscoveryinHollywood.Criticsalso remarkedonthesimilaritiesbetweenthecharacterandtheactress,and RobWagnerwrote,“SoperfectlydoestheroleofEveLovelacefitKatharineHepburnthatyou’llbelieveitisherownlifestory.Ifitisn’t,itmight wellhavebeen,forthisstrangeyoungladyhasoneofthemostdecisive personalitiesonthescreen.”22AsSelznickwasthefirsttoacknowledge, inthatmoment,anewstarwasborn.Selznick’smostfamousdiscovery earnedherfirstOscarfortherole.Butinspiteofthefilm’scriticaland box-officesuccess,SelznickleftRKOafewmonthslater,havingaccepted amorelucrativepositionasMGM’svicepresidentinchargeofproduction. At that time, MGM was also interested in Selznick’s original idea tofilmabarelyconcealedBowbiopic.ThestudiopurchasedCaroline Francke and Mack Crane’s play in late 1932. Bombshell opens with screenstarLolaBurns’ssecretaryfieldingcallsabouttheactress’salleged “alienation of affections” case involving a disgruntled dancing teacher. Lolaistheonlychildofanabusive,spongingfather;hermothercommittedsuicidewhenLolawasachild.Herdirectorwasalsoherloveruntil she suggested that they marry. Her studio exploits her sex appeal ruthlessly,andtheexecutivesnevergivehergoodscripts,onlylousypublicity stunts.Lolasumsupherattitudetowardthestudio:“Ihateyourgutsand allyourdamnedcompanywiththeirsillyliesandlousystories!Ihatethe wholedamnracket!”MGMstoryreaderVivianMoseswrote,“Lolaisa ClaraBowtype.Infact,oneisalmosttemptedtothinkthatitisMissBow beingdramatized.”23Fromthebeginning,MGMknewthatcastingClara BowasLolaBurnswouldbetoorisky.Instead,itcastayoungwomanwho hadonceworkedwithBowasanextra—JeanHarlow.Harlowcouldplay a“ClaraBowtype,”andinmanyways,theircareers,characters,images, andpopularitywerealike. HaroldJohnsrud’streatmentsoutlineanextendedopeningprologue documenting Lola’s career in Hollywood, including shots of women studyingpicturesofherplatinumhairinthebeautyparlorandinsertsof
262 HollywoodHistory
national gossip columnist Walter Winchell’s prattle about her career.24 ClaraBow’sflamingredhairhadinspiredmanyofherfilms(RedHair, 1928),andatfirst,MGMhadmarketedHarlowasanotherRed-Headed Woman (1931) before differentiating her as a Platinum Blonde (1932). Hairandgossipwerenottheonlyconnectionsbetweenthem.EarlytreatmentsblendedBow’sandHarlow’son-andoffscreencharacters,pushing theboundariesbetweenfictionandhistory.TheseearlytreatmentsconstantlyreferredtoLolaas“theBurns(orBow)character”or“theItGirl.”25 JohnLeeMahinandJulesFurthmandevelopedtheconnections,writing asceneinwhichLolaisforcedtodoretakesonRedDust(Harlow’slastbig successforMGM).WhenLolahearsthenewsandishandedthescript, shelooksblank.Shelooksatthescriptofher(andHarlow’s)mostrecent filmanddoesnotrecognizeit—anamusingcommentaryonHollywood’s notoriouslyshortmemory.26YetwhileMahinandFurthmanhelpedturn LolaintoascreenparallelofHarlow,theytendedtoobscuretheoriginal historicalconnectionstoBow.VictorFleming’snamehadoriginallybeen includedinalineofLola’sdialogue;whenshehearsthatshemustreturn totheRedDustset,sheasksifFlemingwillbedirecting.Butbythetime theentirescripthadbeenrewritten,Fleming’snamenolongerappeared. DidClaraBow’sformerdirectorandlover,herformerfiancé,askthathis nameberemovedfromafilm,howeverdisguised,aboutBow’slife?27 ProducerHuntStrombergalsocapitalizedonthepotentialtoelide LolawithJeanHarlow,suggestingthattheyopenwithshotsofrealcrowds surroundingtheatermarqueesreading“LolaBurnsinRed-HeadedWoman,”“LolaBurnsinRedDust,”Harlow’smostsuccessfulMGMfilms.28 AlthoughhewaswellawareoftheparallelsbetweenBowandLola,Strombergtendedtodownplaythem,assertingon7April,“Wemightsaythat thecharacterofHarlowmightrepresentacompositeofanyandallstars whohavereachedforthemoonandarrivedthere.Thisishowrealthestorymustbe.”YetStromberg’sreluctancetofilmaBowbiographydidnot meanthathewasaversetofilmingacorrectaccountofHollywood’spast. He,likeSelznick,wastiredoffantasyandinvention:“Ipersonallyhave knownHollywoodsinceitwasavacantlot.Ihaveknownthepioneersin thebusinessandI’veknownthesuccessesandfailures.TherealHollywoodhasneverbeenputonscreen.Someonehasalwaysgoneeithertoo farornotenough.TheyhavetriedtoclownHollywood,butHollywood isn’ttobeclowned.Hollywoodisaverymiserableplace.”29Yet,forallhis interestinfilmingthe“real”Hollywood,ofaddingincidentsthatparalleledproblemsexperiencedbyactressessuchasBebeDaniels,Constance Bennett,andGloriaSwanson,hecouldnottransformHollywood’shis-
StarsBornandLost 263
toryusingtraditionalhistoricalvaluesassociatedwithcinemahistories.30 Instead, Joan Crawford, Bow, Harlow—all models for Lola—became a Hollywoodcastingtype,acomponentofthestaplestory,aclichéknown toHollywoodscreenwritersandproducerssinceMaryPickford’sBiograph Companydays.Strombergwascircumscribedbyhisviewoftypesrather thanhistoricalfigures,buthehadthesameambitiontogiveHollywood alegitimatehistoryonfilm.HewrotethatLola“is,really,toourscreen storywhatEthelandJohnBarrymoreweretothestageinTheRoyalFamily.”31LiketheBarrymorecharacters,Lolawasadisguisedrepresentation of a real person—or, in Hollywood, a series of persons. In Hollywood, people’s offscreen lives had as many similarities and tendencies toward clichéasHollywoodscriptsdid.Theywerealltypesoperatingwithina repeatedhistoricalpattern.
HollywoodUpstagesBroadway ThecontemporaneousrunofBroadwayentertainmentperiodfilmswas notplaguedbyhistoricalproblems.Broadwaysuccessandfailurestories hadbeenthebasisforaslewofmoneymakingifforgettablesoundfilms inthelate1920s,aswellastherarecriticalandbox-officehitsBroadway Melody,42ndStreet,andTheGoldDiggersof1933.YetwiththeexceptionoftheslyBarrymorebiopicTheRoyalFamilyofBroadway,noneof these films dealt with actual or disguised historical characters from the entertainmentpast.Evenattemptsatbriefhistoricalcriticismandcommentary (as in Gold Diggers’ Great War number) were met with open hostility.YetMaeWest’sentertainmentvignettessetinGayNinetiesNew York, and West herself, escaped such criticism. In spite of the fact that manyofhermostpopularfilmsfrom1933to1936wereperiodtalesbased on her original stories or scripts (She Done Him Wrong, 1933; Belle of theNineties,1934;KlondikeAnnie,1936),Westneverplayedahistorical character.Indeed,whenscreenwritersapproachedheraboutplayingLillianRussellorLillieLangtry,sherefused.Westwouldneverplayaname thatcouldcompetewithherown.Infact,despitetheirperiodsettings, West’sproductionsalwayssubordinatedhistorytoherownstarpersona. TherewasnoresearchnecessaryforawesternoraBowerydrama;West wasthearbiteroftheGayNinetiesandcreditedherselfwithperiodfilms’ riseinpopularity.32Yetthestudio,apparentlywithhercompliance,added thestructuraldevicesofhistoricalfilms—occasionaltexttitlesandsuperimposeddates.33PerhapsParamountexecutivesthoughtthatthetrappings ofmorerespectablehistoricalcinemawouldgetWestpasttheProduction
264 HollywoodHistory
Code.Whateverthereason,WestconsistentlyappropriatedanAmerican historicalperiodasasexualescapefromcontemporarylife,butshenever allowedherimagetobetrappedbythedemandsofhistory. For several years, West’s entertainers dominated the field, but in 1936, MGM decided to reexamine its success with The Royal Family and its competitors’ increasingly daring forays into Hollywood history andAmericanbiography.Asaresult,MGMmadethefirstmajorprestigeentertainmentbiography.Althoughhewasnofilmfigure,Florenz ZiegfeldJr.was,liketheBarrymores,thepropertyofMGMbymarriage. Ziegfeld’swife,actressBillieBurke,hadbeenaprominentMGMstarfor years,althoughsheoccasionallyworkedatotherstudios.Infocusingon the career of Burke’s recently deceased husband, MGM was honoring whatLouisB.Mayerprizedaboveallthings:thepoweroftheproducer and his own property. It was no accident that the first lavish entertainmentbiopic,acornerstoneofanyone’sassessmentofHollywood’s“great man”attitudetowardhistory,focusedonthemostfamousproducerofthe twentiethcentury.34AlthoughTheGreatZiegfeldwasnostirringtaleofthe riseofaJewishjunksalesmantofilmmogul,itgaveMayerthenecessary autobiographicalthrill.ButinselectingZiegfeldforamajorbiographical- historical release, Mayer and his associates had the unique advantage oftheparticipationofmanyoftherealplayersinZiegfeld’slife:Fanny Brice, Will Rogers, writer William Anthony McGuire (who had been with Ziegfeld for ten years), costume and set designer John Harkrider, and,ofcourse,BillieBurke. Intheearlystagesofthescript,screenwriterWilliamAnthonyMcGuire was obviously caught up by the technical demands of a serious historicalfilmandthepossibilityofcommemoratingmanyoftheZiegfeld shows he had written. McGuire planned an elaborate prologue or “ParadeofZiegfeld,”chronologicallyhighlightingZiegfeld’sworkfrom theearlyFolliestoMarilynMillerinSallyandHelenMorganinShow Boat.McGuirethenplannedtofinishtheprologuewithaspokenforeword by Billie Burke. He envisioned her historical introduction in the tradition of MGM’s foreword for Gorgeous Hussy; although he did not attempttoconfrontthatfilm’sstandardof“fictionbasedonfact,”hesaw BurkeindicatingthatTheGreatZiegfelddidnottell“theactualfactsin thepropersequence,butrather...usedincidentsinZiegfeld’scolorful career to base our story on.”35 Only MGM could have pulled it off. If Burke,scriptedlikeanauthority,ahistorian,hadbeenused,thedevice ofthehistoricalforewordwouldhavedeconstructeditsownpurpose:authenticity.Intheend,however,Burkedidnotappearinthefilm,andthe
StarsBornandLost 265
forewordwasscrapped.Instead,thefilmmakersopenedsedatelyin1893 attheChicagoWorld’sFair.MGMdidpreservetheillusionofaccuracy andfollowedtheimpresario’ssuccessesandfailuresthroughhisdeathin 1932,evenasitcamouflagedhismanyaffairswithchorusgirlswithspectacularproductionnumbers. Regardlessofitsattempttoincludeanentertainerwithinthegrowingpantheonofbiographicalsubjects,TheGreatZiegfeld’sreinventionof historicalvaluesmadeitafascinatingpieceoftwentieth-centuryhistoriography.AsfilmcriticOtisFergussonwrote,“Wehavehadromanticized biographiesofshowpeoplebefore,”buttheglamour,thegirls,thelengthy productionnumbers,andthesheerfantasyarenothistoricalfoiblesbut “appropriate”toastudyofZiegfeldthelegend.“Theonlyotherwayto dosuchafigure,”hewrote,“whyandhowhedidit,whatittookfromthe countryandwhatitleft—wouldbetodoabook,tobemoresoberand thoroughandfirst-causey—andinevitablytolosetheprincipalradiance identifiedwiththename...itwouldberatherbarrentowriteabook.”36 Asahistoricalfigure,Ziegfelddemandedinnovationandanewhistorical format. The stodgy values of traditional historiography would have lost thehistoricalvalueofFlorenzZiegfeld’slife.Eventhoughextravagance andprestigehadalwaysbeentheassetsofthemoresuccessfulAmerican historicalproductions,Ziegfeld’sexcess,music,girls,andvagueoreven inventedhistoricaldetailsdepartedfromthevaluesofprevioushistorical productions.YetaccordingtoFergusson,thisdeparturemadegoodhistory. The studio’s eulogy to the producer was the most honored film of 1936. Its historical structures, unusual cast, and huge publicity campaignprovedthatentertainmenthistorycouldbewrittenassuccessfully as any traditional historical topic. In fact, one critic felt that in filming Ziegfeld’s life, Hollywood had trumped even the entertainment genius ofitsprotagonist.37Later,mediahistorianLindaMizejewskiwouldalso observethatthiscanonizationoftheshowmanparadoxicallydiminished Ziegfeld’saura.“TheironyoftheirHollywoodsuccess,”shewrote,“isthat theyeagerlyabsorbthemusicaltheatermilieuofZiegfeldandflip-flopits implications,sothatHollywoodcinemaitselfisglorifiedastheentertainmentideal.”38ThefilmhadpulledoffproductionspectaclesthatZiegfeld couldnothaveattemptedonanystage.Hollywood’stechnicalrestaging of Broadway’s past was another triumph for the film medium over the theater, just as its popular mastery of history represented a victory over detracting academic historians. As Hollywood historicized Broadway’s great successes, some in Hollywood began to reimagine the possibility
266 HollywoodHistory
ofacomparableHollywoodhistoryorbiography.ButZiegfeld’slifewas filledwithmoresuccessesthanfailures,andthefilmrepeatedlyalleviated personalpainandlosswithanopiateofspectacularproductionnumbers. Hollywood’s shorter history had more personal pain. In 1936 Selznick andseveralotherfilmmakersquestionedwhetherTheGreatZiegfeld’striumphalismwastheonlymodeofhistoricaladdressorthemostappropriateoneforrememberingHollywood’shistory.
Selznick’sReturntothePast By1936,SelznickhadleftMGMtoformSelznickInternationalPictures (SIP).InhislastyearsatMGM,hehadindulgedintheprestigeofBritish periodfilmswithDavidCopperfieldandATaleofTwoCities(1935),and he continued in this lucrative vein as an independent producer (Little Lord Fauntleroy, 1936; The Prisoner of Zenda, 1937). Now the head of hisownstudio,LewisJ.Selznick’ssonwantedtoreturntothehistorical periodheknewbest.TheHollywoodhistorycyclehadlostitsimpetusin thelastcoupleofyears.WhatPriceHollywood?andBombshellhadbegun toexperimentwithHollywood’spastbuthadnotretainedthehistorical specificityorthemarkedprestigehehadenvisionedin1932.Although ClaraBowhadretiredbylate1933,thecareersofmanystarssuchasMary Pickford,DouglasFairbanks,D.W.Griffith,GloriaSwanson,andJohn Gilbert had stalled but not ended. By 1936, however, the reign of the old Hollywood elite was definitely over. Wallace Reid, Rudolph Valentino,BarbaraLaMarr,MabelNormand,LonChaney,LewisJ.Selznick, JohnGilbert,AlexanderPantages,Samuel“Roxy”Rothafel,andMarilyn Millerwerealldead.Noonewasrememberingthem. Paramount’slow-budget,understarredHollywoodBoulevardcapitalizedonSt.JohnsandSelznick’sBrownDerbylocale,butitaddedamore poignantcommentaryontherecenttransformationofHollywood.ProtagonistJohnBlakeley’sBrownDerbycartoonisknockeddownfromthe wallandleftonthefloor.LateratapremiereatSidGrauman’sChinese TheatreonHollywoodBoulevard,anewstarpressesherfeetandhands intothecement.Graumantellsher,“Andnow,mydear,youhaveleft yourimmortalmarkinHollywood.”Althoughitiscementandnotmarble,thisisastartlingremarkforafilmshowmantomake.Arefilmsmore forgettablethanaconcreteslabintheforecourtofatheatricaltemple? Aretheytoomarginaltobeconsideredenduringhistoricalmaterial? Incontrasttothefamoussilent-eranamesliningthecementfoyer, this young sound star is a glamour template rather than a personality.
StarsBornandLost 267
Hernameisunrecognizable,andshehasnorealpartinfilmhistory.Beyondtheredcarpet,amotherexplainsthemazeofcementmonuments toherdaughter,andthescriptcallsforclose-upsoftheslabsbelongingto NormaTalmadge,DouglasFairbanks,andWilliamS.Hart,“allwithinscriptionsofnameandyear.”39JohnBlakeleyalsohasoneofthesemonuments,butneitherthemothernorthelittlegirlrememberswhohewas. Blakeley watches them, an anonymous figure in the crowd. Soon after thissequence,areporterapproachesBlakeley,downandoutandfinished inHollywood,andaskshimtoconsiderwritingandserializinghismemoirs.LikeLewAyres’sdoomedgangsterinDoorwaytoHell,hislifetruly comestoanendwhensomeoneasksforhisbiography.Themessageis thatwhenyoubecome“historicallyvaluable”inHollywood,yourcareer isfinished.Butbeyondthesehistoricaltracesintheopeningsequence, HollywoodBoulevardignoresHollywood’spast.Therearenotextinserts orotherstylistictricksofhistoricalcinema,andfollowingtheGrauman’s premiere,HollywoodBoulevarddegeneratesintoaconventionalmurder mysterywithnorelationtoeventsintheindustry’ssometimesluridpast. Selznickwascontemptuousofsuchlow-budgetresults.Hecabledhis secretaryKatharineBrowninSeptember1936,“OurfeelingisthatHollywoodhasbecomeidentifiedwithcheaptitlesofcheappictures,andthis ismoretruetodaythaneverbecauseofHollywoodBoulevard,whichhas beenoutstandingfailureasParamountquickie.”40Selznick’simplication wasclear:hisnewHollywoodfilmwouldhaveprestige. Both Selznick and screenwriters Robert Carson and William WellmanwouldclaimauthorshipofAStarIsBorn.41AccordingtoWellman, thefilm’ssourceswerethings“thathappened...thingsfrommemory.”42 Carson and Wellman’s original story, “It Happened in Hollywood,” existsonlyasathirty-two-pageroughdraftofone-thirdofthestoryandthe outlineoftherest.43Inthisearlyscriptdated22July1936,theyopened in Alberta, Canada, with the screen-struck life of mountain girl Esther Smythe(laterBlodgett).Onlyhergrandmother,Lettie,supportsherambition to become an actress, and she likens Esther’s potential struggles in Hollywood’s wild west to her own pioneer experience years before: “WhenIleftEnglandtocometothiscountry,welandedinNovaScotia andcameacrosstheplainsinprairieschooners.Wedidn’thaveenough foodorwater;inthesummerweburned,inthewinterwefroze....We neverquittryingandwewereneverlicked....Doyouthinkitwasworth it?...Itwas!Wemadethiscountry—thepeopleoutonthebarrenland. Wemadethetownsandtherailroadsandsweatedandsuffered—butwewere pioneers.That’sacertainbreed,butit’sthebestbreedthateverwas.”44
268 HollywoodHistory
That autumn, Dorothy Parker and Allan Campbell liked and retained Carson and Wellman’s pioneer allusions. Nevertheless, by the time the final shooting script was complete, everyone had agreed that howevercharmingitwouldbetomaketheheroineCanadian—likethe reigningqueenofHollywood,NormaShearer—itwouldbemoreeffective to Americanize this story of old and new western frontiers. Lettie became a native easterner and not an Englishwoman, and the writers relocated the pioneer setting from Canada to the American West, specifically,NorthDakota.LettieevenmakesthepredictionthatHollywood willbehergranddaughter’swildernesstoconquer;Hollywoodwillbethe lastfrontier,andEstherwillbethepioneertosettleandconquerit.Inlate 1936 andearly1937,wellintoproduction,RingLardner Jr. and Budd Schulberg(B.P.’sson)werehiredtowriteintertitles,andtheyexpanded onthisthemeinaseriesoffiveplannedtextsuperimpositionsasEsther travelstoLosAngeles: TITLE1:Hollywood/AmythicalkingdominWesternAmerica.
TITLE2:Wherethemagicbrillianceofthesunlightisoutshown
onlybytheauraoffamesurroundingitsever-changingkings andqueens. TITLE3:HOLLYWOOD!/Thelastfrontier! TITLE4:ElDoradoforanewgenerationofpioneers.— TITLE5:Pioneersinsilkstockingsandhighheels—/Convergingby athousandobscureroutestoformonemightycaravanofhope.45
If Selznick wanted the prestige associated with historical allusions and multiple text inserts, he had more than enough. Although not all the Lardner-Schulbergfrontiertextswereused,CarsonandWellmanwereattractedbytheElDoradoandnewfrontieranalogies,andasEsthermakes herwaytoLosAngeles,thefilmprovidedHollywoodwithits“historical foreword.” Selznick’sfilmtookmanyofthetextandvisualtoolsusedinWhat Price Hollywood? and magnified them. There were more text inserts, morenewspapershots,moreelaboratehistoricalreferences.Andthough Selznickusedaconventionalhistoricalforeword,linkingHollywoodwith theestablishedhistoryoftheWest,hismostradicaluseoftextwithinthe filmnarrativebeganintheopeningcredits.Fadingfromtheopeningcast creditsoverapanoramicshotofHollywoodatnight,thecreditsappearas pagesfromashootingscript.Itisnotadoctoredscriptgeneratedforthe camerainpostproduction,asinWhatPriceHollywood?,butashotofthe
StarsBornandLost 269
openingpagesofCarsonandWellman’sfinalshootingscript.Thefilm begins as a script, a clever studio pun for Hollywood film production. Thecamerazoomsinonthetextdescribingtheplannedopeningshotin thesnowylandscapeofNorthDakota.“Asthewolfraiseshismuzzleand howlsagain,wedissolveto....”Thewolfhowlsinvoice-over,andthe scriptpagedissolvestotheopeningshotdescribedinthetext.Selznickand Wellman’sframingdevice(thescriptpagesreturninthefinalsequence) notonlydrawstheaudienceintotheworldofHollywoodfilmproduction butalsoindicatesthefilm’sownstatusasanelaboratelyconstructedidea, awrittenworkmechanicallygraftedbythedirectorontothescreen.But theopeningsequencealsoreworksthestandardstructuraldeviceofthe historicalforeword.Itprojectstext,immediatelycuingtheaudiencetothe script’shistoricalmaterial,andcombinesitwithHollywood’sownnontraditionalwayofwritingitshistoryasanacknowledgedconstructedtext—as inWhatPriceHollywood?andBombshell.ThisisHollywood’shistorical discourse,anditiswrittenwiththetextualforms(shootingscripts,call sheets)andhistoriographiciconography(intertitles)employedbytheindustry.Inrarecircumstances,traditionalhistoricalfilms(Cimarron)succeededinsubvertingthediscourseoftheirownprojectedhistoricaltext. ButSelznick’sconstructionofHollywoodhistoryemployedthemotion pictureindustry’salreadycomplexrhetoricalframes.
ScreenBiographyorHistoricalComposite? AStarIsBornisahistoricalnarrative,butitisnotarrangedlikeachapter fromRamsaye’sAMillionandOneNightsoranexclusive,effusiveinterviewfromapopularfanmagazinesuchasPhotoplayorModernScreen.It isaself-consciouscompositebiography,eventhoughmost1937viewers associatedthecharacterNormanMaine,afadingalcoholicleadingman, withactorJohnGilbert,whohaddiedofaheartattackinJanuary1936.46 Gilberthadbeenoneofthesilentscreen’smostpopularromanticleads. EarthierthanRonaldColeman,moreseriousthantheinsouciantDouglasFairbanks,hewasanAmericanValentino,acapablebalancetoGreta Garbo’sEuropeanexoticism.Accordingto1930sHollywoodcritics,the advent of sound destroyed his career, revealing his squeaky voice. His romancewithGarboendedabruptly,andhisalcoholismgrewoutofcontrol.Hismomentaryhappymarriagewithayoungscreenactressnamed VirginiaBrucedidlittletoslowhisdecline.Hediedin1936,forgottenby theindustry.ButGilberthadvoicedanotheropinion,publiclyblaming Louis B. Mayer for ruining his career with a slapdash, poorly recorded
270 HollywoodHistory
AStarIsBorn: introducingthe“text.”
soundfilm.HeeventookafullpageinVarietytoairthetruth.Mayer mayhavehadareputationforruiningcareers,butfewoutsideHollywood listened;Variety’sobituaryheadlinedGilbertas“oneofthefirstvictims oftalkingpictures.”47ButtheauthordisputedthathisvoicealonehaddestroyedhiscareerandinsteadblamedMGM’spoorscreenwriting,which “failedtorealizethattheimpassionedlovescenesofthesilentpictures becamesillywhendoneintospeech.”ItwasMGM’sinabilitytoadaptto soundfilm,notGilbert,thatwasatfault.AlthoughSelznickmayhaverelishedthechancetoindicthiscallousfather-in-lawfordestroyingamajor star,denigratingmajorproducerswasadangerouschoiceforamaverick independenttomake. Instead, Selznick, Wellman, and Carson created a character and a seriesoflimitedeventsthatparalleledGilbert’slife,leavinganunwritten, unspokenhistoryforaudiencestorecall.Selznickre-createdHollywood’s constructionofappearanceandallowedittocollapseundertheweight of its historical frames. The connections between Norman Maine and GilbertwereevidentlyobviousenoughwithoutblamingproducerOliver NilesforMaine’sdecline.Theromanticactorwithashorttemper,deep thirst, and cynical sense of humor loses his box-office appeal in A Star IsBorn.AsthedirectorcomplainstoNiles,“Hisactingisbeginningto interferewithhisdrinking.”48ThereweremanysimilaritiesbetweenGilbertandMaine,aswellasbetweenVirginiaBruceandEstherBlodgett (VickiLester).Itwouldbeeasyenoughtomethodicallydissectthenarrativeandclassifythevariousveiledhistoricalallusions,butshortlyafter
StarsBornandLost 271
JohnGilbertandGretaGarbo inQueenChristina(1933).
thefilm’srelease,Selznickwasforcedtodojustthat.Attheendof1937, insolventFrenchwriterCharlesRudolphRitterinstitutedlegalproceedingsagainstSelznickInternationalPicturesforallegedlyplagiarizinghis “literarywork”L’hommesansvoix.Ritter’sshortstoryoutlinedthefallofa FrenchsilentscreenstarandthedifficultiesfacingtheParisfilmindustry followingtheconversiontosound.Thestar’syoungwifehasagoodvoice andsucceedsinthenewindustry,whilehiscareerfails. SelznickInternationalPictures’lawyerswenttoworkpreparingthe brief.LawsuitswerecommoninHollywood,andalthoughhistoricalfilms wereoftenthetargetoflibelsuitsbyimpoverishedbutindignantfamily members,historicalsubjectswerealsoeasytodefend.Asproducerswere learning,totheirdelight,historicaleventswerenotundercopyrightjurisdiction.Thelawyers,Joynson-Hicks&Co.,hiredanothersetoflawyers toprepareareportonAStarIsBorn.ThatreportquotedNewYorkTimes filmcriticFrankS.Nugent’sreview,emphasizingthatSelznick’sfilmwas distinctlyAmericanandaboutHollywood.Butthereportwentevenfurther,statingthatAStarIsBornwasbasedonrealeventsinHollywood’s past.“AlthoughtherearemanyHollywoodstoriesinreallifewhichare verylikeAStarIsBorninenoughwaystohavesuggestedthatpictureto writers,Ithinkthatthethreebestknownoneswillsufficeasillustrations.”
272 HollywoodHistory
ThereportthendescribedGretaGarbo’srelationshipwithdirectorMauritzStiller,BarbaraStanwyck’sfailedmarriagetoBroadwaycomicFrank Fay,andJohnGilbert’stragicunionwithVirginiaBruce.Thememorandum went on to describe Hollywood’s film antecedents—namely, Hollywood,WhatPriceHollywood?Bombshell,andHollywoodBoulevard.49 AlthoughtheHollywoodlawyerscouldhavementionedthatsomeofthe Hollywoodfilmswerebasedonhistoricaleventsandpeople,thestudio had to demonstrate a variety of sources, historical and cinematic, even thoughthetwowerenotalwaysexclusive.Selznickcouldhavesavedhimselfandhislawyerstimebyclaimingthatthefilmwasascreenbiography of John Gilbert, but he might have incurred a libel suit from Virginia Bruce;orhecouldhaveformallyidentifiedthecallousMGMexecutives andpublicityagentswhohadhelpedruinGilbert’scareer.Asitwas,both on paper and on screen, A Star Is Born discreetly avoided mentioning thatMaine’sheydaywasinsilentpicturesorattributinghisdeclinetoan inabilitytoappealtosound-eraaudiences.Mentioningthesoundcrisis would have increased the film’s historical specificity, but it also would haveincurredthelawsuitsofmanyothersequallyattunedtoHollywood’s lasttenyears.Still,thetraceofGilbertandthespecterofsoundremain withtheimagesofAStarIsBorn. Theproducerchosetolayerhisfilmwithhistoricalallusions,many ofthemidentifiableonlytopeopleintheindustry.HehadRobertRosson filmpoignantshotsofGrauman’sChineseTheatre(naturallyadvertising thecurrentrunofSelznick’sflop,TheGardenofAllah),andhehasEstherlookrespectfullyatthecementmonumentstoShirleyTemple,JoeE. Brown,EddieCantor,andHaroldLloyd.50Thesecementimpressions,a shrineofmodernVeronica’sveils,areHollywood’sownmonumenttothe impressionofdivinityandmortality.Althoughmanyofthesenamesare partofHollywood’srecentpastandpresent(Templewasstillthecountry’s topbox-officeattraction),somehavebecomeslabs.Estheralsolooksat JeanHarlow’smessagetoSidGraumanandherfans:“Insincereappreciation.”ThisshotwasrichwithassociationforSelznickandWellman. BornHarleanCarpenter,Harlowhadbeenareal-lifeEstherBlodgett— thatrare“oneinonehundredthousand”whomadeittosuperstardom.51 Once,shehadbeenalonelyextrainClaraBow’sfilms.Ayearafterthat, WellmanwasdirectingherinThePublicEnemy.Twoyearslater,shewas starringintheBow-HarlowbiopicBombshell.Ayearorsoafterthat,she wasimmortalizedinthecementoutsideGrauman’s.Thenshemeriteda shotinAStarIsBorn.Onceagain,hermiraculousstorymadeheadlines aspartofthesubtextofSelznick’sfilm.ButafewweeksafterAStarIs
StarsBornandLost 273
JeanHarlow’smemorial atGrauman’sChinese Theatre.
Bornopened,shewasdeadatagetwenty-six.Asthefilmplayedlatethat spring in theaters across the nation, Esther’s longing look became one notonlyofrespectanddelightbutalsoofnostalgiaandregret.Harlow’s monumenthadindeedbecomeaslab,butonethat,likeherfilms,still containedaphysicalimpressionofthefigurewhowroteherownnamein Hollywood’shistory.52 Esther’stransformationisrareandremarkable,butsheisnotalone. Esthermayfearherscreentest,butNormanreassuresherwithacanonof greatactresseswhostartedsmall:“Theyallhadtogothroughthis—Harlow, Lombard, Myrna Loy—and Esther Blodgett.”53 Esther’s rise is not fictional.InadditiontoJeanHarlow,CaroleLombard,andMyrnaLoy, Gary Cooper, Clark Gable, and, of course, Janet Gaynor (who played Esther)hadallbegunasanonymousextraspushedtostardombychance andhardwork.54Asonereviewerwrote,AStarIsBorn“tellsastorywhich couldhappeninHollywood,astorywhichinmostofitselementshashappened.ThestoryofthecountrygirlwhobecomesastarisnomorefantasticthanthestoryofJanetGaynor,whoplaystherole,forMissGaynor wasatheaterusherandthenanextraplayerbeforeshebecameastar.”55 Thepressbookespeciallycapitalizedonthesereal-lifeconnectionsand historicalallusions,proclaiming,“HistoryRepeatsItself”asitadvertised individualscenesinthefilmandhintingthatJanetGaynorwasplaying herself on screen. Other historical legacies haunted Gaynor’s career. A recent news article had touted her as Mary Pickford’s successor, a title withwhichAmerica’sSweetheartconcurred.56Gaynor’sbrandofsweet, homegrowninnocenceandvivacityremindedaudiencesofPickford,and
274 HollywoodHistory
lately,FoxstudioshadbeencastingherinremakesofPickford’ssilenthits, includingTessoftheStormCountry(1935).YetjustasPickforddidnot disappearwithsilentfilm(Coquette,1930;Kiki,1931;Secrets,1933),neitherdidGaynoremergewithsound;shehadbeenworkingforFoxsince early 1925. In fact, after a series of unsuccessful vehicles at Twentieth Century–Fox,shewasindangerofbecominganotherNormanMaine. FredricMarch,aBroadwayactorwhohadmadeanameforhimself inhighbrowfilmssincetheadventofsound,wassparedthesehistorical burdensinthepress.DespitetheendlesscomparisonstoJohnGilbert, March’s portrayal of Maine no doubt borrowed elements of drunken elegance from his performance as John Barrymore (another alcoholic antecedentforMaine)inthe1930filmTheRoyalFamilyofBroadway. AccordingtoWellman,itwasBarrymore’sowndescriptionofhisdetox clinic(withbarredwindows)thatinspiredNorman’sdryprisoninAStar IsBorn. Earlierin1936,asCarsonandWellmanworkedoutthedetailsofthe script,silentactorJohnBowerscommittedsuicidebydrowninginthesurf outsidehisMalibuhouse.FormerlymarriedtoMargueritedelaMotte, Bowershadbeenasuccessfulboyishromanticleadinthe1920s.Hissuicidewasashocktomany,butbythemid-1930s,manyHollywoodstars haddisappeared.TheProductionCodehadmadesuicideatabootopic inHollywoodproductions,butSelznickwrylyadmittedthatheseemed tohaveafixationonthesubject,sincemanyofthefilmsheproducedat MGMandSIPendedwithsuicides(WhatPriceHollywood?AnnaKarenina, A Tale of Two Cities, and Garden of Allah). Evoking an actual HollywoodsuicidelikeBowers’swouldhardlybewelcomedbytheHollywoodcommunityorapprovedofbythecensors,yetSelznickpushed. WeseeMainemakehisdespairingdecisiontoendhislifeinordertosave Vicki’scareer,andoneofthemostbeautifullyphotographedsequencesin TechnicolorisofMainewadingintothePacificasthesunsetsinMalibu. Deathmaybecruel,butHollywoodcolumnistsareworse.Whenhereads thenewsofMaine’sdeathinthepapers,Libby,theirasciblepressagent, sneers,“Firstdrinkofwaterhehadintwentyyearsandeventhenhehad togetitbyaccident....HowdoyouwirecongratulationstothePacific Ocean?”Libby’sspinonthepastmayneverbeprinted,buthisremarks arepartofSelznick’sscreenhistory,andtheyareembeddedwithinthe textofCarsonandWellman’sscript.YetunlikeBowers’sdeath,whichwas barely noticed in print, Maine commanded headlines and a funeral as impressiveasthatofMGMexecutiveIrvingThalbergtheyearbefore. FilmhistorianRonaldHaverwroteofAStarIsBorn,“Theloreofthe
StarsBornandLost 275
JohnBowers,ca.1924. (Author’scollection)
town was rife with successes, has-beens, come-backs, ruined marriages and tragic deaths, and after years of retelling and being gossiped about and clucked over, these events and people took on a kind of romantic patina,becomingtheauthenticlegendsofHollywood,makingwinners outoflosersandgivingsomeofthemanimmortalitythattranscended anythingtheymightactuallyhavedoneinpictures.”57Toacertainextent, thismaybetrue.JohnBowerswillalwaysberememberedasthemanwho inspiredNormanMaine’ssuicide.YetmanyoftheHollywoodfilmsabout thiserafocusedonthecareersofthemostimportantfilmmakersinthe business—ClaraBow,JohnBarrymore,JohnGilbert,andJeanHarlow. WhatimpelledSelznicktofilmthesepeople’slives,tomakeanauthentic historyofHollywood,wasthewaytheirstoriessimplydisappearedfrom memory.Therewasnopermanence,nosenseofhistoryinHollywood. Selznickchangedallthatin1932and1937.IfhemadeHollywoodconsciousofitspresentbyhavingEstherimitateWest,Garbo,andHepburn atastudiococktailpartyandbydocumentingSantaAnitaandtheBrown DerbyinalltheirTechnicolorglamour,hedeliberatelyforcedtheindustrytocometotermswithitspast—itswillingnesstoforgetorglamorize theuglierpartofitshistory.Asonereviewerputit,“AStarIsBornisnot thewholestoryofHollywoodbecausethatstorywouldneverbetoldin onepicture,norinadozenpictures.Butitdoesmorethanhaseverbeen donebefore.”58 Esther Blodgett may literally and figuratively step into Norman
Esthertriesstepping intoNormanMaine’s footsteps. (AStarIsBorn)
Esther(playedbynewstar VickiLester)isstoppedin hertracksbythepast. (AStarIsBorn)
NormanMaine’sslab: screenedoff,butnot forgotten. (AStarIsBorn)
StarsBornandLost 277
Maine’sshoeprintsinthecementfoyerofGrauman’s.Shemayeclipse hiscareerandinadvertentlycausehisdespairanddeath,yethisfootprints aretoobigforher;shecannotfillthem.Byimplication,nomodernstar canfilltheshoesofthosestarswholoomedlargerthanlifeanddominated,howeverbriefly,amoreintimidating,exoticera.Selznickneverforgot thosedays.Estherwillalwaysremember:asshewalksuptheredcarpetat Grauman’s,hereyesdroptotheslabsatherfeet.Sheseesallthatisleftof herhusbandintheindustry,faintcementimpressionsscreenedoffatthe margins,anditstopsherinhertracks.AStarIsBornwasDavidSelznick’s attempttofilmHollywoodhistoryinallitsvariety,distortion,andellipticalbasisinfact.PerhapsitwasinevitablethattheHollywoodfilmshould adoptsomeoftheiconographyandprojecteddiscourseassociatedwith contemporaneoushistoricalfilms.Intext,panoramicshots,monuments, historicalallusions,andfrontierrhetoric,SelznickInternationalPictures matchedthemoreprestigioushistoricalfilmsofthaterashotforshotand wordforword.Butthetruemeasureofthefilm’scommitmenttothepast comesfromNormanMaine,ashesaysgood-byetohiswifeshortlybefore hissuicide:“DoyoumindifItakejustonemorelook?”59
This page intentionally left blank
10
AHollywoodCavalcade, 1939–1942 Hereissomethingthatisgoingtorevolutionizetheindustry. —DarrylF.Zanuck,1939
In 1939 Hollywood produced an unprecedented twenty-seven major Americanhistoricalfilms.Itwasayearsaturatedwith critical and box- office successes, ranging from adaptations of the classics of English literature(WutheringHeights,GungaDin)tosophisticatedcomedies(Midnight, The Women), modern romances (Ninotchka, Love Affair), and musicals (The Wizard of Oz, Babes in Arms), but American historical filmsfaroutnumberedanyotherA-levelgenreorcycle.DarrylZanuck producedtenofthesefilms,evenoutdistancingtheoutputofhisrivals at Warner Brothers, Paramount, and MGM. Although Twentieth Century–FoxwouldcontinuetoproduceAmericanhistoricalfilms,thestudio wouldneveragainattainthestaggeringoutputandrangeofhistoricalmaterial.1OneofZanuck’s1939projectswasHollywoodCavalcade,theindustry’sfirstretrospectivelookatitsowndevelopmentfromthesilentera throughtheconversiontosound.Itsreleaseintheaterscoincidedwiththe publicationofthreemajoraccountsoftheAmericanfilmbusiness:Lewis Jacobs’s Rise of the American Film, Margaret Farrand Thorp’s America attheMovies,andWilliamC.DeMille’sHollywoodSaga.2Jacobs’sand Thorp’scontributionshaveenduredasfootnotesinensuingaccountsof Americanfilmhistory,3whileDeMille’smemoirandZanuck’shistorical filmhavebeenforgotten.Althoughbothareuniqueandcrucialattempts 279
280 HollywoodHistory
byHollywoodfilmmakerstoremembertheindustry’spast,DeMille’sautobiographyisnecessarilynarrower—amemoirofhisworkwithbrother CecilatParamount.OnlyZanuck’shistoricalfilmapproachesthepanstudioconceptionofHollywood’shistorypracticedbyJacobsandhistwo predecessors,TerryRamsaye(1926)andBenjaminHampton(1931).4 HollywoodCavalcade’sconnectionstothemoretraditional,written worksoffilmhistoryrepresentaturningpointintheindustry’sconfrontationwithitspast.From1939to1942,TwentiethCentury–Foxandlater WarnerBrothers,theleadingproducersofAmericanhistoricalfilms,producedagroupofentertainmenthistoriesandbiographiesthatwouldrival theprestigeofthestudios’morestaidnineteenth-centurysubjects.The productionandcriticalreceptionofHollywoodCavalcade,anditslater BroadwaycounterpartYankeeDoodleDandy(1942),illuminatetheentertainmentcycleasacontestedsiteofhistoricalauthorityandnarration. Inconstructingthegrandnarrativeoftwentieth-centuryentertainment, filmmakerscreatedacanonofgreatevents,stars,films,andtechnologicalinnovations,buttherewereconsiderablestrugglesovertheirrelative importanceinthescript.
The“Evolution”ofFilmHistory Writers,socialcritics,historians,andfilmmakershadbeenconsciousof Hollywood’srapidgrowthandremarkablepastfor a long time, but the publicationofthreemajorstudiesoftheindustry’sartisticandfinancial achievementsinoneyearindicatesagrowingacceptanceofHollywoodas ahistoricalentity.TerryRamsaye’sandBenjaminHampton’sfilmhistoriesclaimedtobethoroughchronologicalaccountsofthedevelopmentof filmintheWest,buttheyfocusedoverwhelminglyonHollywood,particularlyafterthestudios’consolidationfollowingtheGreatWar.Ramsaye’s studywaspublishedshortlybeforetheadventofsound,andHampton’s 1931industrialhistorygaveonlymarginalfinancialattentiontothenew developmentsof1927–1930.Thecinematicachievementsinsoundand theindustry’sslowconquestoftheDepressionhadcreatedanothermajor historicalperiodthathadyettobeformallyincorporatedintoHollywood’s grandnarrative.Thestrugglessince1927hadbeenreal,yetfilmmakers measured success in ways other than pure financial gain, and, despite shakybox-officereceipts,theycontinuedtomakedangerouslyexpensive historicalfilms.5 LewisJacobs,adocumentaryfilmmaker,followedthelasttenyears with excitement and found that there were compensations for the loss
AHollywoodCavalcade 281
ofpioneeringdirectorssuchasD.W.GriffithandErichvonStroheim andmajorstarssuchasRudolphValentinoandMabelNormand.ForJacobs,historicalfeatures,withtheirfocusontheAmericanpast,provedthe Americancinema’semergencefrom“adolescence,”itsstatusasamature medium.6BeforeMargaretThorp’sstudy,academicshadonlydenigrated themoviesasaprovinceofculturalandmoraldecay.7Thorpexamined thefilmindustryasapowerfuleconomicandsocialforce,asocialphenomenonwithnoequalinmodernlife.Ratherthanrelyingonoutside censorshipcampaignsandpubliccondemnationsoftheindustry,Thorp proposedtolookatHollywoodonitsownground.Studioexecutives,particularlyatWarnerBrothersandTwentiethCentury–Fox,wereeagerto helpThorpandprovidedherwithinsidearchivalinformationandstatisticsaboutfilmproductionandexhibition.Itwasoneoftheearliestcollaborationsbetweenacademiaandthefilmindustry.AlthoughThorp’sstudy wasnotatraditional,RamsayeanaccountofHollywoodfilmmaking,she focusedondevelopmentssincethesoundera,therebyauthenticatingit asanewstageinHollywood’shistory. WilliamDeMille—actor,writer,producer,director,andelderbrotherofCecil—hadbeeninvolvedinfilmmakingsince1913.In1939,after overaquartercenturyinthebusiness,hepublishedalandmarkmemoir- history,oneofthefirstaccountsoftheAmericanfilmindustrybyamajor Hollywood filmmaker. DeMille had started on Broadway, eventuallyfollowinghisbrother—atfirstreluctantly,thenenthusiastically—to CaliforniatofilmtheearlywesternTheSquawMan(1914).Afteryears ofwatchingandparticipatinginindustrialchange,ofreadingthetrade papers and his brother’s publicity, he was well versed in the “pioneer” metaphorsthatdominateddescriptionsoftheearlyfilmindustry.Inhis accountofCecilB.DeMilleProductions,hegloriedinthetransformation of a once despised entertainment medium into an industry and a newAmericanart.Hewrote,“FromaBroadwaypointofviewtheGold Rush of ’49 was mere child’s play compared to the present Gold Rush whichhasluredsuchalargeproportionofthetheatricaltalentwestof theRockiesinamadscramblefortheyellowmetalofHollywood....It canbenosmallforcewhichintwentyyearshasmadethemuchderided moviesanartmorenationallyimportantthanthetheater;whichhasactuallysubordinatedthestagetothescreen.”8ButwhileJacobslaudedthe developmentandcurrentmaturityoftheindustry,andThorprepresented contemporaryHollywoodatthepeakofitsconsiderablepowers,thetone ofDeMille’smemoirwaselegiac.Hedescribedapioneererathathefelt hadutterlydisappearedfrom1930sHollywood.Thefilmindustry,how-
282 HollywoodHistory
everefficientandpowerful,hadlosttheramshackleandromanticforce thatdrovehimandhisbrother.9 DeMillewascertainlynotaloneinhisnostalgiaandneedtohistoricizeHollywood—DavidSelznick’sexamplehasshownthatthemostpowerfuloftheseearlyhistoriesofHollywoodwerefilms,notwrittenhistories ormemoirs.YetthemajorityoftheentertainmenthistoriesandbiographiesproducedatthestudiosfocusedonWilliamDeMille’smoribund Broadway (Diamond Jim) and old-style New York nightlife (She Done HimWrong,TheBowery).Perhapsitwasunderstandablethatfilmmakers wouldhistoricizetheirolder,morefastidious,and“finished”EastCoast competitor;Hollywood,afterall,prideditselfonbeinganindustrywith itsfutureandfinancialgainsaheadofit.DeMilleslylywrote,“Thereare eventhosewhoproclaimthatiftheAmericanstageistobekeptaliveit mustbesubsidizedbyHollywood;mustberegardedlargelyasaproving groundforplaysontheirwaytoBroadway;atestinglaboratoryforactors inwhichtheexactquantityoftheirsexappealmaybedetermined.”10But Broadway, even on its last legs, was still capable of leeching $275,000 fromRKOtoproduceRobertSherwood’sAbeLincolninIllinois;itcould stillsendNewYorktalentofftotakethejobsofHollywood’soldstars. Twoyearsearlier,TwentiethCentury–FoxscreenwritersSonyaLevienandRichardShermanhadimbuedtheirscriptFallingStarwithsome Broadwaymenace.AnoriginalstoryofamajorHollywoodactorwhose careerisdestroyedbyvanity,talkingpictures,andtheexodusofmorecapableNewYorkactorstoHollywoodfollowingtheconversiontosound, Falling Star reminded 1937 Hollywood of the many silent careers lost touppityBroadwaytalent.11Yetcuriously,thescriptwassetentirelyin contemporaryHollywoodandlackedanyhistoricalallusionsorprologue. AndunlikeBombshell,MorningGlory,andAStarIsBorn,noneofthe characterswasbasedonanactualstarorscenario.Levien,arecentNew Yorktransplantherself,admittedthatsheinventedfreelywithoutregard forHollywood’spast.Zanucknevermadethefilm.Hemayhaveflinched atitshackneyedplotandlackofinterestinghistoricalreferents,buthe wasnotinterestedincopyingSelznick. Inlate1937ZanuckabandonedSelznick’sunconventionaleffortsin cinematichistoryandturnedinsteadtoMGM’sparagonofpolishedentertainmentbiographyandbox-officesuccess—TheGreatZiegfeld—and thememoryofMaeWest’speriodbawdinessatParamount.AlthoughShe DoneHimWrong’speriodprestigeandnineteenth-centurysexhadgarneredanAcademyAwardnominationforBestPicturein1933,onlyafew yearslater,theProductionCodehadnearlyfinishedWest’scontractwith
AHollywoodCavalcade 283
Paramount.Zanuck,sensingtheneedforacleanerentertainer,launched Alice Faye in a series of prestigious historical musical productions. Although In Old Chicago’s dance-hall sequences recalled the Mae West extravaganzasthatwerenolongerpossibleunderHays’sandBreen’seyes, Zanuck was committed to continuing his own risqué nightlife histories begunwithTheBoweryin1934.Astheyearsprogressed,though,Faye’s charactersunderwentremarkablechanges.FirstshewasthewhollyfictitiousBelleFawcett,dwarfedbytheperformanceofthe1871Chicagofire; thenshebecameapartiallyimaginedIrvingBerlinloveinterestinAlexander’sRagtimeBand.Bylate1938,shemovedclosertohistoricalspecificitywhensheplayedaversionofFannyBriceinTheRoseofWashington Square.By1940,ZanuckcastherasoneofthemostinfluentialentertainersinAmericanhistory:LillianRussell.That1940filmwasZanuck’sfirst studio biopic of an important American woman. Faye’s characters had once reacted to events beyond their control; now, it seemed, a woman couldreceivethesamehistoricalprestigeasP.T.Barnum,SamuelMudd, AlexanderGrahamBell,andAbrahamLincoln. Zanuck,however,wasgrowingboredwiththecyclehehadinitiated at Warner Brothers a decade ago. Although the research and technical demandsofInOldChicagohadexcitedhim,toomanyofthenarrative deviceswereidentifiedinconferencesbyreferencestootherfilms,such asChinaSeasorMutinyontheBounty,andespeciallyscenesreminiscentofSanFrancisco.12InOldChicago’shistoricalresearchwaswidely publicizedinthepresscampaign,13butthenarrativewasexplicableonly throughotherfilms.Historywasbecomingafilmformula.Laterin1938, ZanuckattemptedtomakehisfabricatedIrvingBerlinbiopicmorehistoricallyimpressivewithalongandbitterGreatWarinterlude,andhismajor concernsaboutTheRoseofWashingtonSquare’sscriptcenteredaround perioddetailsofprewarNewYork.14BythetimeheturnedtonineteenthcenturyBroadwayinlate1939,historyhadbecometooeasyforhimto manipulate.ZanuckalsohadlittleregardforRussellasahistoricalfigure. AlthoughUniversal’sDiamondJimandMGM’sTheGreatZiegfeldhad provedRussell’sappealasacameoinmajorhistoricalproductions,and althoughhehadhiredZiegfeldscreenwriterWilliamAnthonyMcGuire towriteLillianRussell,afterdoingsomeresearchandreadingthescript, Zanuckfoundherrathertedious.Atonescriptconferencehecomplained that things “just happened to her,” and she reacted to historical forces ratherthanmakingdecisionsforherself.15 Henonethelesscontinuedwiththeproject,andMcGuiretrieddesperatelytolinkRussell’slifetosomeofthemoreprovenandimpressive
284 HollywoodHistory
eventsinAmericanhistory.Hedevelopedanelaborateprologueemphasizing the coincidence of Russell’s birth date and the beginning of the CivilWarin1861.16Helentherhomelifeandupbringingsomevicarious powerbycontrastingthecareerofhersuffragettemotherwithherown. ButtheseeffortsdidlittletodispelZanuck’sdissatisfactionwithRussell’s passiverelationshipwiththecircumstancessurroundinghercareer,and bythemiddleofDecember1939,hehaddevelopedanoverreactiveneed tocontrolandrewriteheruneventfullife.Heoutlined“hisreasonsfor wantingtotakemorelicenseinthelifeofLillianRussell,”whichwere “that the general public does not know anything about Lillian Russell, exceptthatshewasbeautifulandthatJimBradywascrazyabouther.”17In otherwords,theAmericanpublicknewonlythehistorythatmotionpicturescovered.Universal’sDiamondJimhadintroducedRussellasBrady’s girl, and as far as Zanuck was concerned, films were the public’s only historicalframeofreference.Yetcuriously,hiseffortstocutandcontrol Russell’slifemirroredtheactress’sowneffortsinconstructingherautobiography.Ina1922accountserializedinCosmopolitan,Russellcarefully emphasizedherfeministupbringingandcuttwohusbandsandonechild outofherlife.Zanuck,whetherheknewitornot,reproducedRussell’s ownconstructionofherlife.18 Ofcourse,focusingonawomanasamajor“historical”figurealso mayhaveviolatedZanuck’ssenseofpatriarchalhistoricalvalues.Women hadneverbeenanimportantcomponentinhishistoricalwork.Thefollowingyear,historianDixonWectercompiledapantheonofAmerican heroeswithoutincludingasinglewoman.19Wecterfoundthismasculine canonuniqueinWesterncountries,wheremoreoftenasinglewoman epitomized national heroism. England had Queen Elizabeth; France hadJoanofArc.ButAmerica’sMollyPitcher,AbigailAdams,andLucretiaMottwereatthemarginsofmainstreamconceptionsofthenational “hero”because,hewrote,inAmerica,“thedominantidealhasbeenthe perfectlady.”20 Yetperversely,Americancinemaofthe1930smadeheroinesoutof rebelliousfictionalwomen(SabraCravat,RamonaMoreno,JoMarch, Scarlett O’Hara, Julie Marston) and tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to makeladiesoutofhistoricalnonconformistsAnnieOakleyandCalamity Jane.Washistoricalfictionfulfillingamorecompellingformofnational mythwherewomenwereconcerned,orwerewomenlessmalleableto symbolic manipulation? Wecter argued the latter, stating that women lack “the symbolic appeal” of men. Does this mean that women have more historically resilient qualities, that their lives and careers are less
AHollywoodCavalcade 285
vulnerabletomythicmanipulation?Zanuck’sheroes,foralltheirconnectiontoAmericanmyth,weredeployedasameansofreconfrontingand oftenrevisingtraditionalinterpretationsofthepast.SamuelMudd’slittleknowntalehadimpelledZanucktobringThePrisonerofSharkIsland accuratelyandforcefullytothescreen.MargaretMitchellandSelznick accomplishedsomethingsimilarwithScarlettO’Hara,afictionalcharacter whofunctionedasacompositeofhistorical,nonconformingConfederate women.Scarlett’smaverickstatusservedasbothmaskandmirrorforincompletetraditionalhistoriesandthemoreunsettlingprotofeministrealitiesexpressedinthefilm.CouldZanuckhavedoneforRussellwhathehad accomplishedforMudd?Probablynot.Itwasnotaquestionofwhether Russell had mythic appeal or historical resilience; it was a question of whereshefitinZanuck’shistoricalcanon.Fortheproducer,bothRussell andBroadwayhadatenuousholdinthetextofAmericanhistory. Hollywood’shistorywasanothermatter.In1939Zanuck’sHollywood Cavalcadetoldthestoryofapioneeringdirectorwhostealsapromising actress fromBroadwaytoentertheemergingfilm business. They head westward,andshebecomesoneofthesilentscreen’sgreatstars.Timeand distancehadencouragedZanucktorethinkSelznick’swork,butZanuck’s cinematichistorywasremarkableinthatitsnarrativestructure,discourse, and events followed the historiographic approach of more traditional subject matter. Less inventive than A Star Is Born, more self-conscious and perhaps even pretentious, Zanuck’s film mimicked and aspired to thehistoricalstructuresofRamsaye’sAMillionandOneNightsandthe biographycycleknownatFoxandWarnerBrothers.Surprisingly,though, whileotherFoxemployeeswereexcitedbythepossibilityoffilmingHollywood’spastwiththedetailandhistoricalstructureusuallydevotedto aCivilWarhistoryorprestigewestern,Zanuckwasambivalent.Unlike Selznick,whousedthestricturesofcensorshipandindustrialamnesiaas ameansofexploringthedifficultiesandimpossibilitiesofremembering Hollywood’spast,HollywoodCavalcadeappropriatedawell-wornhistoricalformattoconstructaspuriousestablishmenthistoryofHollywood.
TheDreamofHollywoodHistory Zanuckwasasadeptatcapitalizingonhiscolleagues’cinematicdevelopmentsashewasatcreatingnewcyclesandtrends.Forthepastseveral yearshehadbeenwatchinghisindependentrival,DavidSelznick,develophisHollywoodentertainmentcycle.ZanuckandSelznickdidnot moveinthesamesocialcircles,andevidencesuggeststhattheydisliked
286 HollywoodHistory
each other.21 This is unfortunate, since their ambitious bodies of work andtheirimpactsontheindustryweresowidespreadandsimilar.Both menworkedtheirwayupfromstoryeditorstoheadproductionatmajor studiosandthenwentontocreatetheirownstudios.Bothhadanobsessionwithoverseeingeachscriptandproductiondetailofeveryfilmreleasedbytheircompanies.Bothweretirelessworkers,perfectionistswho blurredtheborderbetweenproduceranddictator.Yetheretheirsimilaritiesceased.Zanuckwastheonlynon-JewishstudioheadinHollywood. He was no one’s son-in-law, whereas Selznick had cannily married his boss’sdaughter,IreneMayer,in1930.Zanuckhadnofamilyinmotion pictures.Whenhestartedasafreelancescreenwriterinthemid-1920s,he startedalone,withnohelporencouragement.UnlikeSelznick,whogrew up with Hollywood, Zanuck had few memories of the glamour of “old Hollywood.”WorkingatthethriftyWarnerBrothersstudiowastough,and formanyyears,hislifeoutsidethestudiowasnonexistent.Havingbegun asawriter,hehadmorerespectforascreenwriter’sautonomyandscreen sensethandidSelznick,whohadareputationforgoingthroughwritersas quicklyashedidBenzedrinetablets.WarnerBrotherstaughtZanuckthe benefitsofeconomy,andunlikeSelznickInternationalPictures,TwentiethCentury–Foxremainedsolventforyears. Most important, Zanuck had no qualms about the introduction of andconversiontosound.AsoneoftheproducersofTheJazzSingerand The Lights of New York (1928), Zanuck considered sound an advancement,notadeathknell.Zanuckalsohadnosadmemoriesofthesilent era.UnlikeSelznick,thepastdidnothaunthimunduly;instead,theold days were something quaint to celebrate. Selznick had proved the salabilityofentertainmenthistory,andin1938,Zanuckauthorizedathinly disguisedbiographyofcomposerIrvingBerlin’searlycareer,Alexander’s RagtimeBand.22Thatyear,hedevelopedandoversawtheproductionof dozensoffilms,yethisprestigevehiclesoverwhelminglyconsideredhighprofile American historical figures or events: In Old Chicago (the rise ofIrishimmigrants,bosspolitics,andtheGreatFireof1871),Kentucky (thelegacyofCivilWarandReconstructionbitternessinthehorse-racing world),JesseJames(outlawheroes,theriseofbigbusiness,andtheLost Cause),AlexanderGrahamBell,YoungMr.Lincoln,andFrontierMarshal(Tombstoneandthecrisisofthecattlebarons).Buthealsosetaside sometimeforHollywoodhistory. InlateOctober1938heexpandedonhispreliminaryidea,ataleto becalledHollywoodCavalcade.“Therecanbenodoubt,”heremarked inastoryconference,“thatthereisawealthoffascinatingmaterialcon-
AHollywoodCavalcade 287
nectedwiththedaysofearlyHollywood....Insteadofgoingoutofour waytocontriveastoryandsituationsfromoutofthinair,weshouldtake asapatternthecompositeofseveraloftheseinterestingpersonalitiesand adaptthemforonestory.”23ZanuckseemedtofollowSelznick’sapproach indrawingfromspecificeventsandcareersinHollywood’spast,disguisingtherealnames,andformingcompositebiographies.Zanuckreasoned that too much specificity would baffle and bewilder those viewers outsidetheHollywoodcommunity.Yet,itseemedlogicalthatusingMickey Neilan’sandMackSennett’snameswouldonlyhelppublicizethepicture. Theircareers,though over,werestill recent enough to be part of thememoriesofallbuttheyoungestfilmgoers.YetZanuckpersistedin hisview.Washeafraidoflawsuitsfromlivingfilmmakersortheirwives (Neilanandhisex-wife,actressBlancheSweet,cometomind,aswellas LouisB.Mayer,whohadsabotagedNeilan’sdirectorialcareer)andthe studiosandexecutivesforwhomtheyonceworked?Thesewerefearsthat filmmakersconstantlyfacedinfilmingmodernhistory.24Butitalsomay havebeentoomuchforHollywoodtocommemorateitspastunflinchingly,particularlywhenbeing“ofthepast”inanindustrydependenton youth and perennial success was considered “failure.” Would Zanuck’s decisiontomakeafilmspecificallyaboutHollywood’swashed-upandruinedstarsembarrassboththeaudienceswhoforgotthemandthestudios whoterminatedtheircontracts? Atfirst,Zanuckchosetoemphasizethedevelopmentoftheindustryratherthanitspersonalcasualties.Itwasaninterestingreversalofhis habitualapproachtohistoricalfilmmaking,wherebyagreatlifeorlives dominatedorfoughtagainsttheforcesofhistory.Inearlyscriptmeetings, heplannedtoshow“thefirstclose-up,”themovefromNewYorktoHollywood,thedevelopmentoftechnique(or,inZanuck’swords,“howthey naileddownthecamerasinthosedays”),andscenesdepictingtheageof slapstickandspectacle.ButforZanuck,themostimportantelementin the development of motion picture history was the advent of talkies. It wassoundthatwouldmostdeeplyaffecttheprotagonistsof Hollywood Cavalcade,ElinorKirby(laterVeraDaleandthenMollyAdair),Michael Thurn(laterJohnMitchellandthenMikeConnors),andCharlesBarth (laterLewBrackettandthenNickyHayden).25Zanuck’swritershadoutlinedastorythatinmanywaysrepresentedthepopularcompositebiographiesofD.W.GriffithandLillianGish,MickeyNeilanandBlanche Sweet,DouglasFairbanksandMaryPickford,andespeciallyMackSennettandMabelNormand.ThurnisabrilliantnewmotionpicturedirectorwhocollectsBroadwayactressElinorKirbytobehisnewstar.The
288 HollywoodHistory
stigma of being a film actress destroys her reputation as a serious stage actressaswellashermarriage,andshelosescustodyofherson(following thelifeofBelascoactressMrs.LeslieCarter,filmedasTheLadywithRed HairbyWarnerBrothersin1940).Elinorgoeswest,andThurn,inspired byherface,developstheclose-up.Shebecomesamultiplehit,embodyingHollywoodactresses’successesasthegirlnextdoor(MaryPickford), thenasthecustard-piepratfaller(MabelNormand),andthenasthebathingbeauty(GloriaSwanson).Whenherfameddirectorpasseshiscareer peak,sheleaveshimforanotherstudio.ThurnreactsaspoorlyasGriffith did when Gish left him for Paramount, or as badly as Neilan did after ThalbergandMayerforcedhimtoleaveMGM. Zanucklikedtheoutline,andtheNeilanovertonesallowedhimto get in a dig at stodgy rival Louis B. Mayer, but he demanded that the transitiontosoundreceivespecialtreatment.26Althougholdfriendstry to help the director (now called Mitchell) make a comeback film,The JazzSingerappearsbeforeitcanbereleased,makinghissilentepicobsolete. In spite of the odds, Mitchell adapts his old film for sound and succeeds in recapturing audience approval (unlike the real Griffith, whonevermadeasuccessfultransitiontosoundwithAbrahamLincoln, andNeilan,whosecareerfizzledafterheleftMGM).Originally,writer BrownHolmesdevelopedatwenty-yearhistoryofHollywoodthrough a two-generation tale of Elinor’s early stardom and her son’s budding career;however,Zanuckdislikedthemorecomplicatedscriptinwhich all the major characters would have to age considerably. He worried thatthetwo-generationformatwoulddemandfixeddatesandahistorical pretentiousnessthatwouldconfusetheaudience.Hewantedatimeless, agelessfableculledfromtheloreonmotionpictureinfancy,andinlate 1938,heinsistedthatErnestPascalrewritethescripttofocusexclusively onMitchell,VeraDale,andLewBrackett. ProducerJulianJohnsonobjectedtoZanuck’sstreamlinedcommercialvehicle(originallyintendedforSpencerTracy)andpushedforthe morenuancedunderstandingofHollywood’spastthathadbeenpresent inearlierdrafts.Thebackgrounddetails—camerasandKeystoneCops— wereallright,buthearguedthattheforegroundneededasimilardepth andanarrativestructurethatconveyedasenseofindustrialchangeover time.ForJohnson,“theshowingoftwogenerationsinthemovies—the realfeelingofhistoryandprogressmadeatsorapidaratethatthestars ofthoserecent‘earlydays’arealmostunknowntotheyoung1939audience”—wasthefilm’smostoriginalidea.27Oldstarshavebecomeminor characteractors,hewrote,andZanuckshouldnotignorethesecasualties
AHollywoodCavalcade 289
ofhistory.Hepressed,“Wehavethebestexamplesofthisterrificspeed oftimeinthemoviesrightonourownlot:youarethemostsignificant exampleofthemovie’syoungergeneration,andTyronePowerthemost prominentexampleofthemoviesecondgeneration.”HereJohnsonmay have gone too far. Although Zanuck did not belong to the illustrious castofoldHollywood,theproducerlikedtothinkthathehadenough knowledgeandpersonalexperiencetocoverHollywood’sentirehistory. Johnson’scomments,intendedaspraise,mayhaverankled,becausethey impliedthatZanuck,injettisoningthetwo-generationformat,lackedthe historicalsensetoportionHollywood’shistoryinproperperspective.AlthoughZanuckbeganhiscareerinthe1920s,he,unlikeJohnson,28truly belonged to the sound era. More than any other filmmaker at Warner Brothers,hewasresponsibleforthelandmarkJazzSinger:heeditedSamsonRaphaelson’soriginalstory,oversawday-to-dayproduction,andedited thefinalcut.29 Johnsoncontinued,evidentlystirredbythetopic:“Theseelementsof timeandhistory,whicharesoimportant,Ithinkaregreatlydiminished byfinishingourstorywiththesamepeoplewhostartedit,oncemoreon thetopmostpinnacleofpopularsuccess.”JohnsonknewthatZanuckdid notwanttomakeafull-blownhistoricalfilmbyrunningclipsofTheBirth of a Nation, The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and The Ten Commandments, but he still wanted to reach audiences with a sense of the remotenessoftheearlysilentera,“notonlyinsetsandbackground,but alsoinhumanbeings.”Johnsonwantedthenarrativetotakeplacenotat oneimaginarystudiobutatagroupofrealstudios,givingamorenuanced andaccurateviewofthevarietyofearlyproduction.Healsoobjectedto Zanuck’sfacilecharacterJohnMitchell,who,inthescript,makesallthe major discoveries in film history: the close-up, the Keystone Cops, the bathing beauties, “and just about everything else worthwhile.” Johnson admittedthatthisshockedhimbecausehehadoriginallyreadthescript asifitwereabiographyofMickeyNeilan—andlateracombinationof Neilan andMackSennett. ForJohnson, itwas more than a mistake to combinealltheachievementsofHollywoodstyleandfilmmakinginone person’s career; it was a travesty and a betrayal of the audience’s intelligence. Film historians hell-bent on economically determined histories of HollywoodfilmproductionhaveenshrinedHollywoodexecutives’gospel of audience infallibility (“The customer is always right”),30 but surprisingly,manyfilmmakershadanunconcealedcontemptfortheaudience’s mentalabilitiesanditscapacitytorecognizeagoodfilm.Ashisfrequent
290 HollywoodHistory
storyconferencesindicate,Zanuckthoughtthatheknewwhatalowbrow audiencewantedandconsentedtocondescendandcompromiseinthe nameof“entertainment.”Hehadtakenalotofrisksovertheyearsinmaking complex American historical productions that were not all romance andwisecracks,butheknewthattheywererisks.Hewasnottheonlyone toworryaboutthepopularreceptionofprestigepictures.WilliamDeMille knewthatproducersalwaysclaimedtogivethepublicwhatitwantedbut frequently refused: “They have listened to the voices of the clergy, the educators, even the intelligentsia, and usually with disastrous financial results.”31JulianJohnsonwasnotalowbrowoftheDeMillemold;grovelingtotheAmericanpublic’simaginedsluggishmentalitywasnotalways goodpublicrelations.Andnoaudienceissostupid,Johnsonreasoned, thatitcannotremembertherealMackSennett,D.W.Griffith,andRudy Valentino.JohnsonwentontooutlineadirectapproachtoHollywood historical filmmaking, one that departed significantly from Selznick’s complex allegories in its unambiguous characterizations. He wanted to haveidentifiablecameosofrealfilmmakers.“Forinstance,”heproposed: A dignified elongated, rather Shakespearean-looking man who deals daringly in heroic subjects only, and is referred to by some—thoughneverbyourhero—as“themaster.”Underanothername,ofcourse,D.W.Griffith.Iwouldhaveashort,stocky, short-spokenhustler—turningout“punch”playsinbatchesand superwesterns—whom the foxy ones will have no difficulty in identifyingasalegitimateparaphraseofthelateTomInce.Iam notsosurethatIwouldn’tevenhaveashort,elderlyactor,but notadialectcomedian—playingakindly,carefullynon-libelous character,layingoutavalleyestablishmentcalledColossalCity. TheaudiencecouldspothimasUncleCarlLaemmle—ifthey wished.IwouldevenventuresoclosetorealitythatIwouldhave one rather elegant and aggressive young man who introduced megaphone and puttees to camera art, and made edifying superspectaclesofmoralnature—yetwhoperhapscouldneverbe quite identified as Cecil B. DeMille. (No need to bring in the bathtubs,whichwouldpinhimsure.)32 ThenJohnsonplannedtocastactorsas“livingre-creations”ofsomeof thegreatactorsandactressesofthepast,includingthesupremebeauty BarbaraLaMarr,Valentino,andWallaceReid.Heevenpressedtoincludeshotsofsilentfilmclassicswhereappropriate.
AHollywoodCavalcade 291
Johnson knew Zanuck’s great record on American historical films; after all, he had helped Zanuck produce most of them. He timed his nextargumentforHollywoodCavalcadewell:“Wehavenohesitancyin recreatingwell-knownstatesmen,inventors,explorers.Whycan’twebe thefirsttobringtolifeagain,justforquickmomentsandflashes,theearly greats of our industry?” He resented the script’s fictionalized treatment ofHollywood’searlyhistory,itsgrossdistortionsandbreezydisregardfor historywhiletheCivilWarandGildedAgereceivedmorecarefulhandling.WhythisconsistentlyremoteandfantasizedviewofHollywood’s past?AudiencespaidfarmoreattentiontotheHollywoodfanmagazines thantotextbooks,sowhyshouldn’ttheyappreciateamorematurefilm aboutHollywood’spast?Inthecourseofhislongmemo,Johnsonnever mentionedSelznick’seffortsortherecentsuccessofAStarIsBorn;Zanuckalwayslikedtobethefirstineverything,andevenmentioninghis archrival in independent production would not have been politic. Yet forallitshistoricalreferences,shotsoffamiliarlocales,monuments,and names,JohnsondidnotwantHollywoodCavalcadetobeanimitationof AStarIsBorn.HisviewoftheHollywoodhistoricalfilmemphasizedthe history,thepassageoftime,inaself-conscious,conventionallystructured, andunequivocalwaythatplaceditdirectlywithinthecategoryofmore traditional nineteenth- and twentieth-century historical fare. Selznick’s experimentalism,whichplayedelaboratelywiththenotionofforgetting anddistortingthepast,onlytoevokeitsmostpainfulmemories,wasnot Johnson’s approach. He wanted Hollywood to finally give itself the respectitdeserved.Mostlikely,Johnson’sgreatestregretwasthatthefilm hadtobeproducedbyasecond-generationfilmmakerlikeZanuck,who hadlittleunderstandingofthepastwithwhichJohnsonwassofamiliar.
Zanuck’sFolly Needlesstosay,ZanuckwasannoyedwithJohnson’sabnormallylengthy reader’sreport,andhechosetoignoremostifnotallofhisunderling’s impassionedadvice.Heneversplicedtheclipsofthesilentclassicfilms withthenewfootage;hehesitatedtoshowanyearlysilentsbecause“the filmsweresocrudeatthattime.”33Cinemahadadvancedsofarthatit seemedembarrassingtoremember.Zanuckneverreturnedtotheoriginaltwo-generationnarrative,buthedideliminatealltheplannedmusicalnumbersforAliceFaye’sleadinglady,statinginconferencethather periodmusicals(InOldChicago,Alexander’sRagtimeBand,TheRoseof WashingtonSquare)werebecomingabitofabore.34Possiblyhealsoreal-
292 HollywoodHistory
Facingcustardpiesfrom thepast:AliceFaye andBusterKeatonin HollywoodCavalcade (1939).
izedthatelaboratemusicalnumberswouldbeatadisadvantageinafilm setinsilentHollywood. Heseemedintriguedbythemanypossibilitiesforhistoricaldetails andcameos(hiringBusterKeaton,anotherstarwhosecareerhadended atMGM),andinitiallyheenvisionedthefilmincrispblack-and-white “documentary”cinematographytoenhancetherealityofthenarrative.35 EarlyinproductionandlongbeforeJohnson’smemo,heevenhiredMack Sennett to act as a script consultant, producer, and actor in the film.36 ZanuckprobablymetSennettwhenthelatterwasbrieflyhonoredforhis contributiontomotionpicturesatthe1937AcademyAwardsceremony. However,evenwithhisadmirationforSennett’scustardpies,cops,and bathingbeauties,ZanuckneverplannedtohonorSennett’stalentsasa directorbyincludingoldfootagefromhisworkinthenewfilm.Zanuck plannedtoremakeandrefilmHollywoodhistoryaccordingtohistaste, andJohnsoncouldnotchangehismind.Instead,Keaton,Sennett,and otheroldfacesreturnedmerelyasfadedcameos,displacedstarsinanarrativedominatedbythenewnamesAliceFayeandDonAmeche. Even though he persisted in giving his protagonists innocuous fictionalnamesandrefusedtonamehisleadMickey,ZanuckandscreenwriterErnestPascalsawtheiryoungmatineeidolLewasacombination ofGaryCooperandDouglasFairbanksJr.Zanuckinsisted,“Don’tmentionspecifictimelapses,”37andhejettisonedtheprojectedtimelinefrom 1911to1939sothattheleadswouldremainyoungandvaguelysituated in history. But paradoxically, the producer had to define his new time span,1913to1927,whenheconcludedthenarrativewiththeadventof
AHollywoodCavalcade 293
the talking blockbuster.38 Even Zanuck’s Hollywood had to be marked bydates.ButunlikeZanuck’srigorouslyhistoricalperiodfilms,noneof thescriptsopenedwithatextforewordordatesuperimposition.Thehistoricalstructurewasleftuntilthelastminute,evidenceofZanuck’soften vague but self-serving attitude toward making a Hollywood “historical” film.Itwascertainlyrevealingthattheonlyinstanceinthescriptandfilm where Zanuck and his team of screenwriters did not “create” the early historyofHollywoodoutoftheirownimaginationswaswhenherecalled oneofhisearlymasterpieces,TheJazzSinger. WarnerBrothers’firsttalkiewasZanuck’sfirstbigfilmsuccesswithoutRinTinTin.Itwasalsothesymboliccatalystforanearlysoundera thathewoulddominate.WhenTheJazzSingerbecameacinematicbyword, Zanuck himself became part of film history. It was the only real film title mentioned in the course of Hollywood Cavalcade’s narrative, andinfocusingonthatfilmtotheexclusionofothers,Zanuckadvertised andmagnifiedhisowncrucialroleinthedevelopmentofAmericanfilm. Earlyinproduction,heplannedfortheNeilan-Griffithmaincharacter to experience an epiphany when he wanders into a theater to see the film.39Bythetimethefilmended,Zanuckplannedthepioneeringsilent director,aformerskepticofsoundcinema,torave,“God,itwaswonderful—hecan’tunderstandhowhecouldhavebeensoblind...why,you can’tlookatasilentpictureafteryou’veseenone—hereissomethingthat isgoingtorevolutionizetheindustry...it’snolongergoingtobeconsideredaracket...it’sgoingtobeagiganticenterprise,etc.,etc.”40HereZanuckwasechoingHollywoodhistorianBenjaminHamptonin1931:“The JazzSingerprovedtobeoneoftheplaysthathaveoccasionallyshaken themovieworldlikeanearthquake,peoplecrowdingintohousestosee it,andleavingthetheatrescompletelyconvertedtothetalkies.”41Butas filmhistorianDonaldCraftonlaterpointedout,itisuncertainhowbig asuccessthefilmwas.Criticsandpublicistsdidnotfaithfullyreportthe grossesandattendancetallies(whichwereextremelyinaccurateuntilthe mid-1940s).WhatiscertainisthatthestudiosconstructedTheJazzSinger as a spectacular box-office success.42 But it was not only a question of WarnerBrotherscannilygeneratingapublicityscreentodrawinmuchneededbox-office;itwasaquestionoffilmmakersandcriticsjustifying thetechnologicaltransformationasamajorhistoricalevent.Afteradozen years, Zanuck was simply reaffirming this discourse in another institutionalworkoffilmhistoriography. Although Zanuck maintained during Hollywood Cavalcade story conferencesthathedidnotwantanyoftheotherdatestobespelledout
294 HollywoodHistory
onscreen,hewasdefiniteaboutmarkingTheJazzSingerastheadventof sound.Itwastobethefilm’soneself-consciouslyhistoricalmoment,and inlateNovember1938,heevenmentionedthathewas“planningtouse cutoutsfromJazzSinger,showingAlJolsonsingingMammy....Ifwe cannotuseactualcutout,wewillprobablyhireJolsontodoascenefor us.”43WarnerBrothersallowedZanucktousethescene,andthenostalgic clipbecameoneofHollywoodCavalcade’smostmemorablemoments, according to Hollywood critics.44 It was the first time that Zanuck ever pushedtoaddvintagefootagetoanyhistoricalfilm,45butTheJazzSinger was,afterall,Zanuck’sfilm.Forhim,realfilmhistorybeganwithtalking pictures.46 Hollywoodcritics,wellversedinHollywood’spastandpresentpreoccupation with invention, nonetheless praised Hollywood Cavalcade as an “introspective and essentially historical account of the birth and growthoftheworld’sgreatestmediumofentertainment.”JustasJulian Johnsonhadpredicted,thereweretwotypesofaudienceresponses,both of which resulted from the groups’ own specific and diverse memories ofHollywood’shistory.“Totheoldergenerationofpicturegoers,thepiethrowingslapstick,theMackSennettbathingbeauties,theKeystoneCop ofthenickelodeondayswillbringchucklesandperhapsagulp,whileto theyoungergenerationtheseuncouthbutbellylaughcomicalitieswillbe anentertainingpreludetothecomingofthetalkieswhichtheyknow.”47 In spite of Zanuck’s efforts to obscure many of the actual names, criticsandaudienceswerenowexperiencedindecodingthehistoriography. Johnson’spredictionswereaccurate,butonewonderswhatwouldhave occurred had Zanuck taken Johnson’s notion of historical change seriously.JohnsonhadenvisionedthepossibilityoffilmingHollywood’sown historywiththesameattentiontodetailandargumentaccordedtoHollywood’s most prestigious films of that era. Although Hollywood CavalcadeprobablypromptedEdwardSmalltoadvertise“TheLifeofRudolph Valentino” as a 1940 work in progress, the independent producer had toabandonhisbiopic.48Rudy’slifedidnotreachthescreenuntil1951 (Valentino,Columbia). Zanuck undoubtedly gave Hollywood Cavalcade the glamour treatment by casting the two Twentieth Century–Fox stars most associated with the studio’s historical films: Don Ameche (In Old Chicago, AlexanderGrahamBell)andAliceFaye(Alexander’sRagtimeBand,InOld Chicago).HeevenwenttotheaddedexpenseoffilminginTechnicolor. Certainlycolorgavethenarrativeagreaterphysicalreality;manyhistoricalfilmswereshotincolortogenerateasenseofrealismandobviatehis-
AHollywoodCavalcade 295
toricalremoteness.SelznickreservedTechnicolorforbothAStarIsBorn andGonewiththeWind.YetforthefirsttraditionalfilmhistoryofHollywood,perhapsblack-and-whitecinematographywouldhaveemphasized theoriginal“documentary”atmosphereandthememoriesofflickering celluloid.Hisone-generationformatcouldoutlineandapproximatebut notengagewiththemajorstructuralchangesinfilmmaking:thecloseup, the eight-reeler, the slapstick comedy, the talking picture. Zanuck wasinvestedincontemporarycinema.UnlikeSelznick,Zanuckhadno relationship,personalorhistorical,withHollywoodCavalcade’sretelling ofAmericancinemahistoryfrom1913to1927.Thefilmhadafictional core,unlikeAStarIsBorn,whererawmemorieswerenotsoothedbyselfreflexiveHollywoodgloss. TheproductionofHollywoodCavalcaderaisessomemajorquestions aboutthelimitsofhistoriography.WhonarratesHollywood’spast?What constitutes the great story? For Zanuck and many others, Hollywood’s ownhistoricalnarrativewasappropriatelyaheroicsuccessstory.In1939 thismodeaccordedwiththegrowingnarrativetendencyinmoretraditional historical film narratives and the bent of mainstream American historianswhowerelosingtheirrevisionistedge.Curiously,Williamand CecilB.DeMille’scareersinHollywoodcloselyapproximatedZanuck’s historicaltimespaninHollywoodCavalcade(1913–1927).Zanuckalso sharedsomeofWilliamDeMille’sviewofHollywoodhistory.Thestory ofdevelopmentsinAmericanfilmartwasataleofprogresstowardartisticmaturityinthesoundera.Theadventofsound,althoughtragicfor some and introducing sweeping changes, was a necessary purgative for theevolvingart.49 Relativistdoubtsaboutprogressandobjectivity,whetherarticulated bySelznickorCarlBecker,wereanincreasingrarity.Andyet,therewas adistinctdifferencebetweenthehistoricalnarrativesofZanuckandthose ofRamsayeandJacobs.Zanuckrefusedtoacknowledgeorrecognizethe legendarysuccessesofD.W.GriffithandCharlesChaplin.Morethan any other figure, Chaplin consistently dominated the box office from 1913to1927.Ramsaye,Jacobs,andespeciallycriticGilbertSeldesconsideredhimcrucialtoanydiscussionofHollywood’spast.YetbothGriffith andChaplinremainedcommittedtosilentfilmmaking.Bothspokeout againstthewidespreadcapitulationtosound.Griffithadaptedpoorlyand faded.Chaplinsimplyrefusedtoconform,andindefianceofthetalkies and production wisdom, he produced the enormously successful silent comediesCityLights(1931)andModernTimes(1936).Chaplinrefused toallowHollywood’spasttobepastandthusdefiedZanuck’sconfident
296 HollywoodHistory
historicalstructureanddefininghistoricalmoment,theadventofsound. Griffith and Chaplin were not part of Zanuck’s Hollywood history preciselybecausetheycontradictedthenotionofhistoricalprogress.Rather than progressing, Hollywood lost many of its greatest artists after 1927; thegoldenagewasnotinZanuck’sfuturebutinGriffith’sandChaplin’s past.Nevertheless,HollywoodCavalcadeisanimportanthistoricaltext, ascrucialtotherepresentationofHollywoodhistoryasJacobs’sRiseofthe AmericanFilm;itmaybeevenmoreimportantbecauseitrepresenteda contemporaryindustrialviewandincludedthevisualdetailandnarrative inventionintegraltoHollywood’sdevelopment. TheAmericanfilmindustry’sfascinationwithentertainmenthistory extendedwellbeyonditsownmotionpicturepast.Justaslong-standing weretheindustry’shistoricalaccountsofBroadway.Alexander’sRagtime Band(1938),TheRoseofWashingtonSquare,andLillianRussell(1940) wereallpopularwaysofadvertisingAliceFaye’svoice,Fox’scommitment tohistoricalfilmmaking,50andeventhesubtlebutdeeplycherishedbeliefamongfilmpeoplethatBroadwaywasarelic,amoribundentertainmentvenueandworthyofhistoricaltreatment.In1939WilliamDeMille expressedthisviewinhismemoirs.His“life”beganin1913whenCecil persuadedhimtowriteforthecinemaratherthanthetheater.Neither Broadway’scontemptnorHollywood’sperilousenvironmentaffectedthe DeMilles.Theycontrolledoneofthefewearlysilentproductioncompaniestosurviveandprosperinthesoundera.BothDeMilleshadbegun inthetheater,buttheyhadnoregretsaboutleaving.Broadwayhadonce dismissedthebrothersandthenewentertainmentindustry,butWilliam DeMillehadmuchsatisfactioninremarking,“Itcanbenosmallforce which in twenty years has made the much derided movie an art more nationally important than the theater, which has actually subordinated thestagetoscreen.”51Hollywoodhadthelastlaugh.Withtheadventof sound,Broadwayplaywrightstookupthenewcraftofscreenwriting,and BroadwayactorssuchasHumphreyBogart,HenryFonda,ClarkGable, KatharineHepburn,PaulMuni,BarbaraStanwyck,andSpencerTracy quicklydominatedtheprestigepicturesofthemotionpictureindustry. AlthoughZanuckhonoredthegreatageofBroadway’spastwithadmiringbiopicsofFannyBrice,IrvingBerlin,andLillianRussell,hewas justasreadytolampoonitshoity-toitycondemnationofHollywoodwith TheGreatProfile(1940).52Here,undernopressuretorenderanimpressivehistory,ZanuckendorsedthesimilaritiesbetweenthecharacterGarrick and actor John Barrymore. Garrick, a New York actor turned film star, is kicked off the lot of his latest picture, Macbeth, and returns to
AHollywoodCavalcade 297
Broadwaytodoalousycontemporaryplay.Theimplicationsareobvious: HollywoodhassuckedupBroadway’soldclaimstoprestigeandpompositybyannexingbothitsactorsanditsplays.ButGarrick,likeBroadway,is “washedupandfinished,”accordingtohisagent,andin1940heissent backtoBroadway.TheparallelsbetweenBarrymore,the“GreatProfile,” andGarrickmakethisfilmclosetobiography.BarrymorehadmetZanuckwhenthetwoworkedforWarnerBrothersinthe1920s,butafter leavingWarnerBrothersandMGM,theactor’scareerasaromanticleadingmandeclined.In1939,inawell-publicizedmove,heleftHollywood tostarinanewplay. MyDearChildren(1939–1940)wasnotcomparabletoBarrymore’s famousproductionsofHamletorRichardIII,butitwasahugetouring andBroadwaysuccess.Thecriticscalledita“trashystory”butlovedit.53 ZanuckquicklybeckonedhimbacktoHollywoodtoimproviseafilmversion.AlthoughMyDearChildrenwasconceivedasafarcefromthestart,54 thescriptofTheGreatProfilemakesadeliberatestrikeatcontemporary theater.Garrickisconfrontedwithapretentious,obsoleteBroadwayand ayoungfemaleplaywrightinfusedwiththeneedtowriteseriousdrama. Heknowsthathisnew“highbrow”vehicleisunintentionallymorefarce thandrama.Afteradismalopeningnight,andprimedwithalcohol,he turnstheartyfiascointoacomichitasheinsultstheplay,theleading lady,andtheaudienceonstage,swingsoncurtaincords,andmimicshis ownimagewithslow,sweepingpresentationsofhisprofile.Inthefilm text,newspaperinsertsheraldthisBrechtiantourdeforceas“alandmark oftheatrehistory,”andonceagain,Zanuck’sfilmdenigratesBroadwayin ordertovalorizeHollywood.Afterall,thislandmarkoftheatricalinnovationispossibleonlyonfilm.55 Forseveralyears,Zanuckhaddominatedentertainmenthistory,and nooneelsewaswillingtohistoricizetheindustryorexplorethecreative tensionsbetweenfilmandstage.Instead,themostsuccessfulentertainmentfilmatthattimeeulogizedamanandthetheatricaleraevenmore carefully than Hollywood Cavalcade: Warner Brothers’ biography of GeorgeM.Cohan,YankeeDoodleDandy(1942).Thefilmrespondedto manyofthefactorsthathaddevelopedearlysound-erahistoricalfilmmaking,butitalsorepresentedatransitionandtheendofthathistoricaltradition.YankeeDoodleDandywasRobertBuckner’sfinalhistoricalscriptfor WarnerBrothers.Beginningin1943,he,likemanyothers,madethetransitionfromhistoricalscreenplaystoSecondWorldWaradventures.That year,hewroteandproducedperiodstarErrolFlynn’sfirstwarfilm,UncertainGlory.YankeeDoodleDandyrepresentedWarnerBrothers’final
298 HollywoodHistory
large-scalehistoricalfilm;althoughitsharedOscarswithMrs.Miniver, MGM’swartimeresistancefilmwasthefutureofprestigiousHollywood filmmaking.56AlthoughWarnerBrothershadproducedseveralantifascist filmsin1939and1940,by1942,mostofitsproductionlinewasfocused onwarpictures.Cagney,Bogart,andFlynnweresecondedfromhistoricalfilmstoaidwarproduction.YankeeDoodleDandywasthelastofthese expensiveandserioushistoricalfilms,butacinematiclifeofGeorgeM. Cohanwascertainlyacuriousconclusiontothecycle. Althoughhewasofthetwentiethcentury,withalegendarycareerextendingthroughtheFirstWorldWar,CohanwasanauthenticVictorian individualist,anold-fashionedherostraightfromthepagesofaHoratio Algernovel.AlthoughheandAlvinYorksharedacodeofindividualism, perseverance,andnationalfaith,York’slifeanditsresonancewithtraditionalAmericanheroessuchasDanielBoonehadtobeinterpretedby others.NooneeverspokeforGeorgeM.Cohan.Cohanwasresponsible forcreatinghispublicidentity,andforfiftyyears,bothonstageandoff,he exploitedit.Unlikemostpublicfigures,particularlythoseinshowbusiness, heneveradaptedorreinventedhisprinciples;althoughveryconsciousof himself as a star, he lacked the twentieth-century self-consciousness that was so incompatible with traditional heroes. Broadway’s eventual vicious attackonitsmostfamousplaywright,producer,director,actor,composer, andlyricistsignifiedachangeinAmericanvaluesaspoignantasthefateof JohnGilbertandD.W.GriffithinHollywood.By1941,whenWarner Brothers began to consider his biography, Cohan had been a national institutionfornearlyfiftyyearsandaBroadwaypariahfortwenty.With his biopic, Hollywood had the opportunity to consider neglect, loneliness,decay,andanotherentertainmentindustry’smistreatmentofagreat star.However,WarnerBrothersresistedanytemptationtodwellonthe conflictanddeclineofhiscareerandinsteadfocusedonthecelebratory patriotismofhismusic.ByemphasizingthemusicanditsrecognizedperennialAmericanness,thehistoricalcontextofCohan’slifedisappeared, leavingthenarrativevulnerabletowartimepropaganda.
TheManWhoOnceOwnedBroadway George M. Cohan was born on 4 July 1878, and his most famous lyrics in Little Johnny Jones (1904) would never let his audiences forget it.57 Although he first achieved stardom in 1891 with his performance as “Hennery” Peck in Peck’s Bad Boy, Cohan’s early talent did not lie in playing other writers’ work but in creating his own acts and revues
AHollywoodCavalcade 299
forhimselfandhisfamily,knownnationallyas“TheFourCohans.”As biographerJohnMcCabenoted,beforeCohan’sinfluence,Broadway’s musical theater tradition was largely derivative of British and French work;CohangavethestageitsAmericanidentity.58Beginningin1901 withTheGovernor’sSon,throughtherunawayhitLittleJohnnyJones,45 MinutesfromBroadway(1905),toBroadwayJones(1914),Cohanremade Americanmusicaltheater.Yetheneverwroteforthecritics;infact,most reviewerssuchasJamesMetcalfwereextremelyhostiletohisunrepentant,“vulgarcomedy.”Cohandismissedthem;ashefrequentlysaid,he wroteforthepeople,notthecritics.Hischaracterswerefromtheranks oftheworkingclass:maids,jockeys,secretaries,andstrugglingactors.His messageortonewassimple,direct,andpatriotic.AsOscarHammerstein IIrememberedshortlyafterCohan’sdeathin1942,“Neverwasaplant moreindigenoustoaparticularpartoftheearththanwasGeorgeM.CohantotheUnitedStatesofhisday.Thewholenationwasconfidentofits moralsuperiority,itsmoralvirtue,itshappyisolationfromtheintrigues oftheoldcountry,fromwhichmanyofourfathersandgrandfathershave emigrated.”59 Inmanyways,Cohan’ssituationmirroredHollywood’sattitudetoward criticsandhistoriansintheearly1940s.Undoubtedlywearyofthecritical responsestohistoricalfilmmakingandhistorians’sublimecontemptfor Hollywood’slucrativehistoricalwork,WarnerBrothers,likemanyother studios, was tired of hiring popular historians as script consultants and sending screenwriters off for weeks of preliminary research before they evenbeganwritingascript.Instead,writersturnedincreasinglytoareasof modernhistorywherehistorianscouldnotbotherthemwitharguments orminutecriticisms.WriterssuchasRobertBucknerconsultedMr.and Mrs.KnuteRockne’sprivatepapersforKnuteRockne,AllAmerican(1940), lookedatnewspaperaccountsandpersonalreminiscencesofLouGehrig forPrideoftheYankees(1942),andlateradvertisedtheirresearchpractices inthefilmcredits.TwentiethCentury–Fox,theleaderintraditionaleighteenth-andnineteenth-centuryhistoricalsubjects,experiencedarebuff in1940.WhileproducerKennethMacgowanwasinthemidstofpreparing the script for Hudson’s Bay, he wrote to historian Grace Lee Nute askingforpermissiontoreadhergalleysforanewhistoryoftheHudson’s Bay Company. She huffily declined, stating that films were one thing, andserioushistoryanother.“Asaprofessionalperson,”shewrote,“Iam naturallymoreconcernedwithmyreputationasascholarthanwithafew hundreddollarsthatmightcomethroughallowingmymanuscripttobe madethebasisofafictionalizedaccountofthefoundingoftheHudson’s
300 HollywoodHistory
BayCompany.”60High-profilecriticssuchasFrankNugentwerebecomingincreasinglyintolerantofHollywood’sforaysintoAmericanhistory.It isthereforeperfectlyunderstandablethatWarnerBrotherswouldchoose a subject untouched by previous historiography and a protagonist who openlydespisedcritics.CohanandHollywoodproducerssharedasimilar viewpoint.In1924Cohanhadintroducedhisautobiography:“Myideain thisstoryistoappealtothegeneralpublic.Tome,thecollegeprofessor withthetallforeheadisofnomoreimportancethantheordinarybuck dancerordramaticcritic.Myaimistoreachallclassesandtobeknown asthe‘MaryPickfordoftheliteraryworld.’”61 Cohan’s autobiography irritated many who hoped for a more intimateviewofitsauthor.Hefocusedoverwhelminglyonhisnineteenthcenturychildhood,theyearsofpovertywithhisparentsandsisterJosiein theirpursuitofBroadwayrespect.TwentyYearsonBroadwaymightwell beretitledMyLifeasPeck’sBadBoy;Cohanevenconcludedhisnarrativewithaquotationfromthatplay,“Andsohesnuckoff,allaloneby himself,andnobodydidn’tseehimnomore.”62Thiswasafittingconclusion,forin1924,manycriticsweregleefullyconvincedthatCohanwas finishedonBroadway.Cohanhardlytouchedonthereasonforthis:his refusal to support actors’ rights to organize a union. Cohan had always loathedtheleft-winglaborcontingentonBroadway;heknewtheworst ofanactor’sstrugglesfrombitterexperience,andsincehissuccessatthe turnofthecentury,hehadbeenknownasthetop-payingproducerinthe business. He supported his own way to success—individual action and hardwork—andhelovedtopointoutthemanydoublestandardsinActors’Equity.Theoriginalchartersupportedonlybilledactors’rightsand refusedequaltreatmenttothemoreneedychorusandstagehands.But Broadwaydidnotforgivehimandevenattemptedtoexpungehisname fromitshistory.Therewerenorevivalsofhisplays,andhefounditmore difficult to find backers. Shortly after his death, Actors’ Equity predictablyrefusedtogivemorethanapaltrysumforastatuecommemorating CohanonBroadway.63 YetneitherCohan’sautobiographynorRobertBuckner’sscriptmentioned the strike and the transformation of Cohan’s postwar Broadway. WarnerBrotherspromisedCohantherighttoedithisownstory,andhe exercisedthatright,muchtoBuckner’schagrin.Cohanalteredhislibrettoasifitwereoneofhisownrevues,removinghisfirstJewishwifefrom hisscreenbiography,alongwithanyreferencestothestrikecontroversy andhissubsequentblackballing.Criticsfrom1943to1980dismissedthe filmasa“fairytale”with“fewactualandfactualdetailsofhispersonal
AHollywoodCavalcade 301
life,”butindoingso,thesecriticsignoredthefundamentalstructureof thefilm:itwasmeanttobeCohan’sowntale—factualorfictional,actual orinvented,unrevealingorembellished.Unlikestandardhistoricalfilms, Bucknerintendedtopreservethesubjectiveautobiographicalnatureof thefilmbyeliminatingimpersonaltexthistoriographyorforewordsand insteadprojectingCohan’svoice(JamesCagney)tointroduceandnarratetheentirefilm.Itwashisreminiscence,andlikehisautobiography, itexcisedorre-createdanumberofdetails.ButBucknerusedthisrather blunthistoricalconstructtojustifyagreatdealofscriptinvention. Intheopeningscenes,Bucknerfabricatedapatrioticprologuethat showed Cohan playing Franklin D. Roosevelt in Rogers and Hart’s I’d RatherBeRight.AccordingtoanearlybiographyofCohan,theentertainerdespisedboththeshowandthepatricianRoosevelt,whohadnever had to struggle for anything. Buckner nonetheless invented a meeting betweenthetwowhereCohantellshislifestorytothepresident.Cohan wasinfuriatedwhenhereadthescript.TheWarnerBrothersscreenwriter not only introduced him in one of the few productions he had starred inthatwasnothisown(andplayinghisleastfavoriterole)butalsohad him narrating his life to a man he disliked on principle.64 As Buckner planned it, Cohan confesses to Roosevelt that his life has been one of constantstruggleandthepursuitofsuccess.Hisscrappychildhood,lack ofschooling,andconstantrejectionandblackballingbyproducerswho resentedhisIrishegowerecertainlymorefamiliartotheDepression-era AmericanpublicthanRoosevelt’searlylifeofunconsciousprivilegeand wealth.Cohanmayhavebeenbornatatimeofnationalcelebrationand comfortablenineteenth-centuryprosperity,hemayhaveachievedgreat personalsuccessonBroadway,yetheispresentedasaheroicanachronism,afragmentfromthepastwhoironicallycannotunderstandthenew motionpicturelingoinVariety.65Theyoungstershemeetsintheearly 1930shaveneverevenheardof“I’maYankeeDoodleDandy”fromLittle JohnnyJones.Yet,aswefindoutinthecourseofthefilm,thereisone Cohansongthatthepublicremembers—“OverThere.”AsCohanleaves the White House, people are singing it, and Americans are joining up fortheSecondWorldWar.Cohanmaybeforgotten,buthispatriotism endures.Inthefinalsequence,heisdrawnintothemarchingranksand thechorus. In spite of Warner Brothers’ efforts to honor Cohan’s life and give himscriptapproval,therewerefrequentskirmishesovertheamountof personalandprofessionalsetbacksheendured.Attheendofhislife,Cohandidnotwanttodwellonhisfailuresandhisdecline,andhewroteto
Openingshot:someone elsepresentsGeorgeM. Cohan.
IndependenceDay,1878. (YankeeDoodleDandy)
Remembering“OverThere.” (YankeeDoodleDandy)
AHollywoodCavalcade 303
thestudiocomplainingthatBucknergavehimtoomuchadversitytodeal with. Associate producer William Cagney and Buckner replied swiftly, attemptingtoglossoverhisobjections.“Thedramatizationofyourlife, Mr.Cohan,hasagreatandtimelyimportance.Itisthestoryofatypical Americanboy,whogrewupwithastrongloveofhiscountry,itswaysand institutions.HislifewasspentinexpressinganddefendinganAmerican wayoflife.”66YetCohanrecognizedthatthisremoteaddress,thisseparation between “you, Mr. Cohan,” and “his life,” was the studio’s way of moldinghislifeintoadefenseofAmericanidealsinthefaceofcontemporarypoliticalcrises.BeingGeorgeM.Cohan,hedidnotwanthislife toplaysecondfiddletoanything,leastofallFranklinRoosevelt’spolicies. CagneyandBucknerrepliedthateditingorchangingahistoricallife“is theonlywayinwhichbiographicalpicturescanbemadeinterestingand worthy.”Cohanwasannoyed,butoutsideeventsweremilitatingagainst hispersonalcommitmentto“accuracy”anddirectlyinfectingthemotivationformakingAmericanhistoricalfilms. WhenCohanrespondedtoBuckner’sfirstscriptwithhisown“more accurate” version, Buckner was livid, telling Hal Wallis that Cohan’s scriptwasamere“egotisticalepic.”Cohan,hesaid,“hastoldthefactual, year-by-yearcatalogueofhislife.Hehascutoutthefamily’stroublegettingstartedonBroadway.Hehascutoutromance.Hehasnodramatized failureorsetback,exceptaminorincidentwhichheimmediatelybrushed off with another sensational hit. These are the major faults. Between themCohanhaswrittenaseriesoflargelydisconnectedsceneswithno continuity orpurpose butto pileup personalanecdotes of ‘How I succeededonBroadway.’”67Thesesavagememosmayhavebeentheresult ofBuckner’sconsiderableegoasascreenwriter.ThetruthisthatCohan hadnotneglectedtoconfronthisownyouthfulegotismandfrequentsetbacksinhis1924autobiography.ForallofBuckner’svaunted“research” ontheproject,heapparentlyneverconsultedtheprimarytextualsource. Cohan’spreeminentobjectionstothescriptsweretiedtothestudio’sand Buckner’sevolvingsenseofoverarchinghistoricalimportance.Whenit madesuperwesterns,WarnerBrotherswantedtojustifyandlaudAmerican expansion. Likewise, when the studio was dealing with Cohan, it wasdeterminedtosubsumehisindividuallifebeneaththecontemporary needsoftheAmericanpublic.Thefilm’smodeofpresentationandnarrationhadbecomemoreimportantthanthecontent.AsWilliamCagney wrotetoHalWallis,“ThegreatAmericanismthemeofthispictureisfar moreimportantatthistimethanthewishofasingleindividualtohave hislifepresentedinamannerthatishistoricallycorrect.”Hecontinued,
304 HollywoodHistory
“CohanshouldbemadetorealizethatthisisagreatAmericanmessage atthemostcrucialperiodinAmericanhistoryandheshouldpatriotically bowtooureffortstodramaticallypresentthestoryofthisgreatAmerican spirit.”68Cohanwantedahistoricaldocumentthatdealtaccuratelywith his own construction of his career. Curiously, Warner Brothers’ declaration justified the obscuring of historical facts in order to present and preserve a compelling historical argument. Hollywood had learned the secrettrickofthesuccessfulhistorian:tosacrificehistoricaldetailsinthe nameofan“enlightenedargument.”Yetthisenlightenedargumentwas nowdirectlylinkedtoexpressingcontemporarypoliticalideologies. In1938historianAllanNevinsarguedthatbiographyisthepreeminentmeansofinfluencingthepublic’sconceptionofhistorybecause“it humanizesthepast”andmakesitmoreaccessible.69Yetbecauseofthis communicative ease, the biography is often denigrated by professional historyasalesscomplicatedandlessillustriousview.Itspopularappeal isalsoitsintellectualnemesis.Thefactthat,particularlyafter1938,Hollywoodoftenadvertisedhistoricalfilmswithbiographicaltitlesatteststo thispopularallureandexplainstheensuingprofessionalcondemnation ofHollywood’shistory.Nevins,however,defendedbiography:“Itisperfectlyvalidtoarguethatthepersonalelementinthepastislessimportant thatthecommunalelement;thattheculturaltendenciesofanyperiod, itsgreateconomicforces,itsgovernmentalformsandtraditions...are ingeneralmorepotentthantheactionsofanysinglemanorcoterie.... But . . . those economic forces, those governmental institutions, those culturaltraditionsandideas...areinterestingtomechieflyaselements againstwhich[greatAmericans]...achievetheirvictories.”70Inthepast, Hollywoodfilmmakershadoftenfollowedboththeseprocesses,employingnominalhistoricalfigurestoexploreissuesinAmericanhistoryand pitting great individuals against national norms. But as the remarks of Cagney,Wallis,andBucknerdemonstrate,biographyorautobiography had become not a means of exploring the events and developments in Americafrom1878to1935butsimplyawaytoreconfigureaudiences’ relationshiptothepresent.AlthoughAmericanhistoriansFrederickJackson Turner, Carl Becker, and Allan Nevins had variously admitted the present’sinfluenceonahistorian’sinterpretationofhistory(thedegree ofinfluenceanditsimportanceformingthecruxoftherelativistdebate), in1942,WarnerBrothers’historiansassertedthatthepast,trueorfabricated,wasalwaysinferiortothedemandsofthepresentgenerationand must serve those ends. History was simply in poor taste; biography was “egotism.”
AHollywoodCavalcade 305
Unliketheprestigioushistoricalfilmsof1941,YankeeDoodleDandy avoidedtextforewordsandintertitles.CrucialeventsinCohan’spersonal life,suchashissisterJosie’sdeath,werenotscripted.Bucknerallowed Cohanonlyonefailure:theplayPopularity,ironicallyintendedasahighbrowworktogaincriticalpraise.Whentheattempttomeldintellectualism with a Cohan libretto failed, it took him no more than a screen minute to recover from the shock.71 Hollywood avoided the Broadway strikecarefully,asthoughstillwincingfromtherecentsuccessesofHollywooddirectors’,writers’,andactors’guilds.Mentioningunionism,either to defend or to condemn it, was taboo. The Cagney family, all deeply involvedintheproduction,hadanequallypressingdesiretokeepleftwing politics out of the film. James Cagney’s labor work in Hollywood hadrecentlyledtoaccusationsofcommunism.Aninvestigationcleared hisname,butonlyacompletelyunion-freeGeorgeM.Cohancouldexpunge the taint.72 Buckner, Wallis, and Cagney had accurately gauged the publicmind.YankeeDoodleDandywasaspectacular success, and althoughcriticsmayhaveunderstoodthestridentpatrioticcontinuitybetween the two world wars in the script, they also praised the evocative historicalbackground.AsLosAngelesTimescriticEdwinSchallertwrote, “It brings to mind the passing pageant of American history through its chronicleofoneman’shugesuccessintheshowbusiness.”73Cohanand YankeeDoodleDandyrepresentedtheendofanentertainmentera.John Barrymore, almost as famous as Cohan on Broadway, died on the day of the Los Angeles premiere, and the papers were full of the historical resonance.74Twoyearsbefore,Barrymorehadstarredinhisownsatirical biography. Cohancouldnotattendthefilm’spremiere;hewasdyingofcancer inNewYork,andhedidnotlivelongenoughtoseeJamesCagneywin theAcademyAwardforhisperformance.However,hedidmanagetosee anadvanceprintofthefilmathome.Althoughitisquestionablewhether thefilmexacerbatedhisdecline,hisdaughtercommentedthatitrepresented “the life Daddy would have liked to live.”75 This comment has beenthebasisformanyacademicassessmentsofthefilmasaHollywood myth,afilmthateradicatedcontroversyandreconciledCohan’scareerto astoryofclassicAmericanvalues.76YettherewasmoreatstakeinHollywood’stransformationofCohan’slifetosupportthepresentwareffortand cleanseCagney’scareer.AlthoughBucknerandWallisseemedtoabandon historical narrative for mythic creation, their rewriting of Cohan’s life was justified by the accepted practices of American historiography. AccordingtoBucknerandWallis,theyweremerelyexercisingtheright
306 HollywoodHistory
ofanyhistoriantoedithismanuscriptfordramaticemphasis.Theirview ofhistorywasalivingone—althoughthepastandCohanwerehonored, theyhadtobesacrificedforpresentdemands.Historywasalivingforce withanactiveroleincontemporarylife.CohanmayhavebeencontemptuousofbothcriticsandHollywoodscreenwriters,butevenwithWarner Brotherspracticingitsownformofcreativeediting,GeorgeM.Cohan’s namewasinlightsonBroadwayforthefirsttimeinyears.Unfortunately forCohan,theonlykindofBroadwaytheaterthatwouldaccommodate himwasamovietheater.
Conclusion
FromLandofLiberty totheDeclineandFall ofCitizenKane Self-evidently,itwasimpossibleformetoignoreAmericanhistory. —OrsonWelles,1940
The year 1936 had been a peak one for high-profile American historical productions, but in spite of their diversity and sheer numbers,1 one disgruntledfilmgoercomplainedtoWillHaysandJosephBreenthatno studiohadproducedacomparableprestigepictureaboutthesigningof theConstitution.ItwassignificantthatlawyerGeorgeW.Nilssonwrote tothetwomostfamouscensorsinAmericaratherthantoastudiohead.2 Afterall,thehistoricalfociatWarnerBrothers,Paramount,MGM,and Twentieth Century–Fox were the unconventional Barbary Coast, Ziegfeld’sBroadway,rebelssuchasSamuelMudd,andpoignantmixed-race heroines such as Ramona Moreno. Warner Brothers did make a film about the Revolution (Give Me Liberty, 1936), but it saved this stodgy establishment fare for educational shorts produced by Gordon “Holly” Hollingshead.3YetHaysandBreensympathizedwithNilsson—andno wonder: the creation and signing of the Constitution were a triumph of bureaucratic cooperation. A film on this subject offered the prestige of a grand historical film without the censorship snags that often beset productions about the Civil War, Great War, and Prohibition eras. At Hays’srequest,hisandBreen’sdepartmentscompiledapreliminarylistof 307
308 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
Hollywood’sAmericanhistoricaloutputspanningthepasttwentyyears.4 Thelist,whichincludedAandBfeatures,serials,andeducationalshorts, includedAbrahamLincoln,TheIronHorse,MaidofSalem,Operator13, ThePlainsman,ThePrisonerofSharkIsland,Ramona,ShowBoat,SoRed theRose,andTheVanishingAmerican.Althoughtheresearchersadmittedthatthelistwas“bynomeanscomplete,”thesearchtestifiedtothe Production Code Administration’s conservative definition of American history and its interest in controlling the fastest growing cycle in Hollywood.AlthoughthebrieflistdemonstratedthebreadthofHollywood’s historicalsubjectmatter,evenmoreapparentwerethelimitationsofthe censors’shortlist.Haysandhisassociatesexcisedgangster-veteranbiographiessuchasScarface(AlCapone)andIAmaFugitivefromaChain Gang (Robert Burns) and postwar histories such as Three on a Match (1932),HeroesforSale(1933),andOnlyYesterday(1934).Althoughthere werenotwentieth-centuryeventsandpeopleincluded,theyignoredeven biographiesoffamouswomen(AnnieOakley)andcontroversialmen(BillytheKidandSilverDollar).Instead,theypromotedmoreconventional eighteenth-andnineteenth-centurymilitarytopicsthatnarratedtheexpansion of the frontier and the coming of the Civil War. But with the controversialGonewiththeWindinproduction,itwasmorenecessary thaneverforHaysandthePCAtoasserttheircensoriouspower. WhileHaystoyedwiththeideaofsponsoringanAmericanhistoricalfilm,CecilB.DeMille’sThePlainsmanhadbeenrakinginmostof thenewyear’sbox-officeprofits.Encouragedbyhissuccessfulreturnto American history, the Paramount producer-director was already preparingtheresearchandscriptforTheBuccaneerwithJeannieMacpherson. Ashehaddominatedthesexandreligionspectaclesofthepostwarera, soDeMillenowpushedtocommandthespectacleofAmericanhistory. ButthecriticalresponsetoThePlainsmanasa“historical”filmwasnot encouraging;wouldthe“DeMilletouch”maroneofthemostpromisingdevelopmentsinAmericancinema?5DeMillemayhavebeenmore showman than craftsman to America’s “highbrow” audience, and the leadingproducersofAmericanhistoricalfilm,DarrylF.ZanuckandDavidO.Selznick,mayhaveconsideredhimanold-fashioneddinosaur,but DeMille was Hays’s and Breen’s most favored filmmaker. Selznick was a well-known renegade, and Zanuck, who cherished his rebel status at WarnerBrothersandthenhisindependenceatTwentiethCentury–Fox, hadhadfartoomanyrun-inswiththecensorsforthemtotrusthisdiscretion as a historian. In late 1938, when the World’s Fair Committee approachedHaysandtheMotionPictureProducersandDistributorsof
Conclusion 309
America (MPPDA) about the industry’s exhibition entry, Hays selected DeMilletooverseetheproductionofamajorAmericanhistoricalfilmto beshownatthetwofairsinNewYorkandSanFrancisco.6Ratherthan facetheprohibitivecost,contractualobligations,andbickeringofapanstudiooriginalfeature,HaysauthorizedDeMilletoeditandproducea feature-lengthseriesofclipsfromHollywood’smostprestigiousAmerican historicalfilmstonarratethenation’shistoryfrompre-Europeantimesto thepresent. LandofLiberty’sgeneralreleasein1941constitutedthefirstmajor retrospectiveofHollywoodfilmmaking.ItsmemorializationoftheAmericanhistoricalcycle,howeverproblematicinitsdismembermentandreconfiguration of film fragments and historical evidence, indicated the deathofHollywood’smostcomplex,controversial,andexpensiveventure sincetheadventofsound.Thisfinalchapterbeginswithareconstruction ofthistriumphantendorsementofAmerica’spast,wellpublicizedinits timebutunmentionedincurrentfilmhistories.Curiously,manyofthe individualfilmschosentocompletethegrandnarrativedidnotfittheunwaveringdiscourseofprogressanddevelopmentthatHaysandDeMille envisioned.Itwasadisturbingforcedfitofevidenceandhistory.Although DeMilleslashedandsuturedsomeofHollywood’smostprestigioushistoricalfilmsintoatriumphantnarrative,theseamsofthismassive,even monstroushistoricaldocumentshowed. Another major American historical film released that year also returnedtotherootsofthecycle,reconfrontingbothtraditionalhistoriography’sassemblageoffragmentarydocumentsandHollywoodcinema’s tendencytoeditnuanceanddevelopmentinpursuitofaclear,quickly articulatedstory.ButCitizenKane’sNewsontheMarchsequenceisonly the superficial beginning of its encounter with the disjunctive relationshipbetweenAmericanmythsofsuccessandthedeclineofheroichistory.CitizenKane’sensuingcinematicexcavationofthepastcomplicates the national resolution of Land of Liberty in 1941, but shortly after its release,thefilm’sscriptedhistoricalinvestigation(pursuedmostmemorablyinKane’sconnectionstoWilliamRandolphHearst)disappearedfrom critical reviews and interpretations. As the years passed, Orson Welles’s stylisticinnovationswereusedtodifferentiatehisnew,modernistsensibilityfromthestodgiernarrativesofclassicalHollywoodcinema.Withthe lionization of André Bazin, the editors of Cahiers du cinéma, and later AndrewSarris,WellesandCitizenKanebecameemblemsinacrusade tolegitimizeAmericandirectorsasauteurs.7YetCitizenKanerepresents neitherasingleauteur’smasterpiecenoraviolentbreakwiththeso-called
310 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
classicaltradition.BothLandofLiberty’sandCitizenKane’sconflicting attitudestowardwritingtheAmericanpastdeliberatelyrevisitthelegacy of American historical filmmaking in the 1930s. Welles’s and Herman Mankiewicz’sreevaluationofCimarronandtheAmericanself-mademan inCitizenKaneareasharrowingasDeMille’sandHays’sviolentdismembermentofHollywood’sAmericanhistoricalcycle.
ReconstructingtheEvidence AmericanCavalcade,OurAmerica,America,orLandofLiberty,asitwas finallyknown,seemedanenormoustasktonegotiate.HaysandDeMille agreedtohireahigh-profile“historicalconsultant”tolendthefilmthat extracredibility.JamesT.ShotwellwasaColumbiaUniversityprofessor ofinternationalrelations,chairmanoftheAmericanNationalCommitteeonIntellectualCooperation,anddirectoroftheDivisionofEconomics and History of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace. More than any otherhistorianofhisgeneration,hiscareerwasdirectedandamplifiedby hiscloseassociationwiththeWilsongovernment.Afterthewar,hecontinuedtoprintvariationsofWilson’svisionforinternationalcooperation andpeaceattheCarnegieInstitute,editingastaggeringnumberoftexts on the social and economic history of the Great War, world economy, modernandcontemporaryEuropeanhistory,Britishhistory,andhistoriography.8Hisindividualworks,WarasanInstrumentofNationalPolicy andItsRenunciationinthePeaceofParis(1929)andOntheRimofthe Abyss(1936),didaneloquentjobofredeemingthewartimecompetence oftheWilsonadministrationandwarningtheUnitedStatesoftheprice of isolation. Shotwell was undoubtedly the most government-approved economichistorianinAmerica,havingalsoservedunderWilsonaschief oftheDivisionofHistoryattheParisPeaceConference.Althoughhehad editedtheseriesthatincludedJohnMauriceClark’scriticalstudyofthe postwarera,9Shotwell’sownaccountsofthewarignoredthewarprotests, propaganda,anddraconianantiespionagetacticsofthegovernmentand insteadfocusedonthesuccessfuleconomicmobilizationofthecountry andWilson’sinternationalidealism.Shotwellknewmoney,heknewhow totellanofficialhistory,andhehadthekindofestablishmentcredentials thatHaysandBreenrevered.Mostimportant,heknewhowtoedit.Butas DeMillewouldsoondiscover,Shotwell’sideasofeditinghistoryonfilm didlittletohelptheproject. Although,superficially,Shotwell’sandDeMille’sviewsoftheAmericanpastseemedidenticalandinaccordwithHays’sandBreen’sintentions,
Conclusion 311
thefilmmakergavethehistorianonlyanominalroleintheproduction. Shotwellwaspublicizedasa“historicalconsultant,”andthetwobureaucraciesjoinedhandsinthetradepapers,butShotwelldidnotinfluence theoutlineofthescript.ShotwellsentinhisfirsttreatmentandinterpretivemonologueinOctober1938,10butafterlookingitover,production assistantArthurDeBrawrotetoDeMillethatthematerialwasnotofany particularuse.AccordingtoDeBra,Shotwell’sfilmideasresembledthe earlyeffortsofahackwriter.Hisoverarchingtheme,“theAmericansaga: thehistoryofAmericawasbornandnurturedinromance,”wasevenless intellectuallycomplexthanDeMilleandscreenwriterJeannieMacpherson’s initial delineation of territorial expansion, religious freedom, and nationalglory. Macpherson’scontinuityoutlinewasclearer:“ThethemewearetryingtobringoutinthisstoryofAmericaisLIBERTY(governmentaland individual);EQUALITY(allraces,allcreeds);FREEDOM(speech,personal,press);PURSUITOFHAPPINESS(forallmen).”11Shepersisted, “Thesloganandwatchwordthatwearetryingtobringoutinourstory is‘Unitedwestand—Dividedwefall.’”Eachclipfromeachfilm,placed inrelentlesschronologicalorder,wastosupportthefilm’sthesisofnational union. Macpherson and DeMille both saw the course of American history as a progressive and magnificent struggle for greatness, and theywouldmanipulateHollywood’shistoricalfilmmakingtosupportthis premise.Shecontinued,“WehopetoshowattheENDofthispicture, thatafterourcountryhasbeenbroughtintoamagnificentUNION... thateverycitizeninitmustfighttothedeath,toseethatthisUNION is preserved and that no disturbing outside forces whatsoever, shall be permitted to split or destroy it.”12 The massive reappraisal of American historicalcinemawascertainlyunusual,andalthoughmanystudiosmay haveobjectedtoDeMille’srhetoricandtheundueprominencehegave tohisownfewfilmsintheeditingprocess,noonewantedtoarguewith HaysandBreenortoturndownfreepublicityfortheirmostrecentprestigeefforts.AlthoughMacphersonoccasionallytriedtointroducesomeof theAmericanpeople’smorebrutalactions(suchastheburningofAtlanta andColumbiaduringtheCivilWar),theseattemptswerefewandwere oftenvetoedbythecommunityofcensors.13 DeMille and Shotwell’s first idea was to surround the edited film clipswithasuitablehistoricalprologue,onethatwouldconveyapatriotic message to audiences with a minimum of rhetoric. DeMille never thoughtofthefilmasanisolatededucationalsubject,butratherthesum ofHollywood’smostspectacularhistoricalpictures.Eventhoughthefilm
312 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
wasintendedasacuriosityforWorld’sFairaudiences,hekepthiseyeon potentialbox-officereturnsforageneralrelease.Earlyinproduction,he wrotetoHaysthatitwas“absolutelyessentialtohumanizeandpersonalize our story in order to prevent its becoming a lengthy and perhaps dulleducationalfeaturewithverylittlemassappeal....Idonotsaythat weshouldsugarcoathistorybutthatweshouldinjectinourstory...a personalelementthatwillmakeouraudiencefeelitisapartandthatits forebearshavebeenapartoftheAmericanCavalcade.”14Heplannedto temper the history with an early sequence showing a typical American familylisteningtoRooseveltontheradioanddiscussinghistoryinlight ofcontemporaryevents.YetitwasnearlyimpossibleforDeMilletokeep hispenchantforvoice-of-Godnarrationanddidacticismundercontrol. Macpherson was familiar with both pillars of DeMille’s style and approachedherhistoricalresearchaccordingly.ThroughoutJanuary1939 sheorganizedthemajoreventsandpeopleinAmericanhistoryalongthe linesoftheirappealtodifferentmembersofanidealAmericanfamily.15 Hence,“Grandfather’slistofheroes”includedgreatAmericanwarriors suchasKingPhilipandStonewallJackson,while“Grandmother’slistof thinkers”includedMassosoit,WilliamPenn,andSusanB.Anthony.The boyinthefamilyfavoredLeifErikson’svoyages,whileAuntJanepreferred scenesfromValleyForgeandGettysburg.Macpherson’soriginaloutline reallytooktheepicapproach,beginninginprehistorictimesandcarrying through the European settlement of the continent by various peoples, emphasizingthat“AmericathusbecametheMeltingPotorrathercrucibleinwhichisdestinedtobefusedallthoselivingandenduringinterestsofmankinduponwhichahighercivilizationcanbebased.”16This wasthedominanthistoricaltoneandencompassedtheepisodesofValley Forge,Saratoga,Yorktown,ManifestDestiny,theCivilWar,theGettysburgAddress,thesettlementofCalifornia,andfinally“OurInheritance,” thepresent.Sheconcluded,“Thewildernesswasconquered,thecontinentmadeoneandthenationandthechildrenofthosewhoachieved theseexploitsunparalleledintheannalsofcivilization,foundthemselves facedwithanothertaskevenmoredifficult,thatofassuringjusticeinthe distributionoftheinheritance.”17TheGreatWar,titledwithShotwellian flourish“TheGreatCrusade,”concludedthechapterheadings.Yetdespite all these momentous events, strung out laboriously in fifteen episodes,MacphersonandDeMille’sworkinsistedonAmerica’sperennial youth.18History,gloriouscavalcadethatitwas,leftthecoreofAmerican struggle,development,age,anddecayuntouched. EvenasMacphersonoutlinedherhistoricalbackground,sheandDe-
Conclusion 313
Mille retold the bloodless textual records with appropriate film titles.19 AlthoughDeMilleendorseda“LowellThomas”commentatortounite theformlessfilmhistorywithanappropriatelygrandnarrative,thisearly “Cavalcade of America” illustrated DeMille’s flawed memory of Hollywood’sworksofhistory.The1929BritishimperialAfricanadventureThe FourFeatherswassupposedtoillustrate“Americabeforethewhiteman came.”ATaleofTwoCities(1935)andTheCountofMonteCristo(1935) weretoshowthereligiouspersecutioninEuropethatdrovecoloniststo theNewWorld.SoRedtheRosewastoepitomize“thesettlementofVirginia,”DrumsalongtheMohawkwassuppposedtorepresenttheFrench andIndianWar,andTheBuccaneerwasgoingtoheadthe“Montcalm andWolfe”segment.DeMille’sgraspofhistoricalperiodswasevenmore confusedthanMacpherson’struncatedappraisalofthecourseofAmericanhistory.Curiously,whileThePrisonerofSharkIsland,Operator13, andLittleWomenwereincludedtorepresenttheCivilWar,SoRedthe Rosewasignoredinthatregard.AccordingtoDeMille’srecords,Jezebel, anantebellumfeature,wasgoingtoillustratetheReconstructionera.His associatesalsoignoredCimarron,theindustry’smostprestigiousandacclaimedAmericanhistoricalfilm.AlthoughRKO’scomplexepiccovered ahistoricalperiodthatcouldhaveillustratedseveralofMacphersonand DeMille’s headings, the filmmakers filed it as an “Oklahoma oil field” film. In spite of the filmmakers’ spotty recollection of history, early versionsofthescriptbyMacphersonandJesseLaskyJr.constructedaunique historicalprologuethatemphasizedthedisparateviewsAmericansheld abouttheirheritage.20TheWayneswereatypicalAmericanfamilylisteningtooneofFDR’sfiresidechats.Thepresidentiscomparingthepresent instabilityinEuropewiththetravailAmericahasendured.Eachofthe WayneshasadifferentperspectiveonAmerica’smilitarygloryanddefense offreedom.Thelastwarisaparticularlysorepointofcontentionbetween thefatherandgrandfather.Whilethegrandfather,ofTeddyRoosevelt’s generation,isproudoftheirworkintheGreatWar,hisson,whoactuallyfoughtontheWesternFront,hasnoheroicmemoriesorbombastic rhetoricwithwhichtoassaulthisownson.“Igotgassed,”hesaystersely totheyoungboy.ThesecontrastingpersonalattitudestowardtheGreat WaroperateasmetaphorsforthedisparatehistoricalviewsheldbyAmericansinthemorecontroversialtwentiethcentury.Shouldthenationlook inward or outward for its national future? Was isolationism possible or safeinthelate1930s?Theyoungson,wearyofhiselders’blandpatriotismandcommitmenttoisolationisminanagethathebelievesdemands
314 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
moresacrifice,feelsthattheDepressiongenerationhasruinedAmerica. “You’re all so color-blind from saluting the Red, White, and Blue, you can’tseetheplaintruthinblackandwhite.”21Theensuingmeditationon American’s cherished self-sufficiency articulated an underlying conflict betweencontemporarynationalandinternationalidentities. Yetbythespringof1939,DeMille,Hays,andShotwellvetoedthis personalprologue,withitscontrastingviewsofthepastandpresent,becauseitconflictedwiththeirincreasinglyrigidviewofAmericanhistory. DeMille’sprogressivehistory,hisstoryofthedevelopmentofunion,had suchaclearlydefined,authoritativethesisthatthepersonalelementscrucialtoHollywoodhistoricalfilmmaking,theimagesofdissentandcontroversy,oflittle-knownheroesandimaginedheroines,simplydisappeared inthemarchforunity.DeMilleopenedinsteadwithonevoice,theestablishmentvoice,hisvoice,narratingtheundisputed historical path.22 Thisopeningoralforewordignoreddisputeandargumentandtrumpeted the country’s irrefutable and immutable greatness. “America’s history,” DeMillebegan,“isasagaofstruggleandachievementbymillionsofmen andwomenwhocourageouslylabored[on]ahomeforfreedomwherein all,regardlessofrace,creed,color,orposition,mightcontinuetoenjoy thepricelessheritageofLIBERTY.”23Themosaicofimpressiveclipsfollowed,unifiedbyasuitablyimpressivesupplementarycommentary.This oralnarrationindicatedtheindustry’sviewthatfilmscouldnottellthe relevanthistoricaltextfromrevolutiontoexpansion,fromCivilWarto westward nation building, without extensive oral and textual commentary.Inspiteofthecinematicmosaic,theimageswereheldinthrallofan inexorablehistoricalpersuasiondefinedbytext.Imageswereincomplete andfragmented,andDeMilleassumedthathisvoicewastheonlymeans ofunitinghisfilmmakercolleagues’long-termcommitmenttoAmerican history.Lateinproduction,hedecidedtoaddadirector’sprologuethat expandedhisownpersonalandprofessionalvisionforAmericanhistory andAmericanfilmmaking.Hewrote,“BythegraceofGod,thesacrifice ofourforefathers,wesithereinalandthat’sfree.”Later,thefilmcommentatorwouldechohissentiments,remarking,“Thisisnostoryfromthe ArabianNights.Itisthestoryofourowntime.Theworldhasjustbegunto becivilized.Bruteforcegiveswaytointelligence....Nowonder,therefore thatthepathwayofProgressisblockedbyIgnoranceandtheidealsofJusticeandLibertyattimesaredimmed.Humanityisonthemarch.”24 Finalcontinuitiesbeganwiththesefulsomehistoricalforewordsacclaiming“thepricelessheritageoflibertyanddemocracy.”TheCivilWar becameatragicbutnecessarystruggleagainstslaveryratherthananex-
Conclusion 315
pressionofbrutalityandeconomicpressures.Thenation’sinvolvement intheGreatWarbecame“ouranswerwhenDemocracywaschallenged.” TheWorld’sFairreleasecontinuity,dated20June,wasimpressivelytitled “Land of Liberty: A Cavalcade of American History Drawn from Film ClassicsProducedduringthePastQuarterCentury.”25Lincolnwasone ofthefewhistoricalfiguresgiventheopportunitytonarratehishistoricalperspective(recitingtheGettysburgAddress,ofcourse).Yetinspite ofindividualAmericanhistoricalfilms’explorationofunusualhistorical perspectivesandpeople,DeMilleandHayskepttheconglomerate’sdiscoursetothemosttraditionalandtextbook-boundeventsandfigures.In their entirety, films had emphasized struggle, controversy, the voices of bothmenandwomen,andtheparticipationofdifferentracesandethnicities.DeMilleandhisteamofeditorscutthefilmtextsintoemblematic andmanageablefragments.Iconicportraitsofpresidents,mythicimages ofanonymousgunfightersandsoldiersreplacedaonceprominentcastof womeninAmericanhistoricalfilm.OnlypresidentialwivesMaryTodd LincolnandDolleyMadisonmadeittothefilm’sprogram,whichwas headlinedbysuchnamesasPatrickHenry,GeorgeWashington,Thomas Jefferson, Napoleon, Prince Albert of Britain, William Jennings Bryan, andWoodrowWilson.Americanwomenwereknownonlyastheappendagesofstatesmen. Accordingtotheprogram,124filmswereusedintheeditingprocess, yet many of them were not American historical films (The Adventures of Marco Polo, Viva Villa, Victoria the Great) or even historical films (DeadEnd,TheTenCommandments).Controversywasedited.TheNativeAmericanperspectiveinthepushwestwardvanishedfromthetext; filmswithNativeAmericanormestizoprotagonists,suchasTheVanishingAmerican,nevermadethepreliminarycut.FromCimarron,DeMille usedonlythegunfightingsequence.26Ramona,originallyslatedtoform partoftheexpansionistpicture,wasalsocut.NodoubtwhenDeMille’s teamlookedatthefootage,theyrealizedthatRamonahardlyendorsed white westward expansion. Jezebel’s only contribution was Preston Dillard’sportentouscomment,“Onawarofcommerce,theNorthwillwin.” DeMilleexcludedtherestofJezebel’spro-southernrhetoricbutincluded Duncan Bedford’s anti-Confederate sentiments from So Red the Rose. Lincoln’svoicesoothedandsettledthedivisionsoftheCivilWar. LandofLibertyrepresentedtheepitomeofconsensushistory.Itwas notmadebyHollywood’shistoricalfilmmakersbutwasculledbycensors andgovernmentofficialsandHollywood’smostconservativeshowman.It wasreleasedasafourteen-reelnoveltyin1939inSanFranciscoandNew
316 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
York, but after substantial editing in 1940, MGM rereleased a shorter, morepalatableversiontoaccommodatethecountry’spushtowardwarin 1941.Inthemonthsbetweenthesummersof1939and1941,American historicalfilmmakinghadgrowntoapproximatethedemandsofthePCA andthefloridpatrioticstyleofDeMille.AlthoughWarnerBrothersmade legitimate history out of The Roaring Twenties and George M. Cohan, TwentiethCentury–FoxmadeitsownHollywoodCavalcade,andSamuel GoldwyncontinuedtoreleasemodernbiopicssuchasPrideoftheYankees (Lou Gehrig), the majority of filmmakers repeated the success of revolutionaryandfrontierepicsepitomizedinLandofLiberty. Historian Louis Gottschalk once complained to filmmaker Samuel MarxthatHollywood’shistoricalfilmmakersoweditspatrons“agreater accuracy”andthat“nopictureofahistoricalnatureoughttobeoffered tothepublicuntilareputablehistorianhashadachancetocriticizeand revise it.”27 Although filmmakers often worked with popular historians, andalthoughscreenwritersreadthemostrecentacademicworkinpreparationforwritingahistoricalscript,LandofLibertywasthemostpublicized production to use an academic historian in an advisory capacity. Yet this pretentious association with an outside “professional historian” resultednotinaprestigious,pathbreakingreappraisalofAmericanhistory butratherinthesupremeconventionalizationofthecycle.28According to Macpherson’s extensive background research and DeMille’s film resources,Shotwelllookedoverscriptsandresearchbutdidnotcontribute muchmorethanhisname.AsDeMille’saidespointedout,thehistorian waspracticallyuselessexceptasaliaisontotheWorld’sFairCommittee andHays.IfShotwell’spresencerepresentedthecontributionofaprofessionalhistoriantoAmericanfilmmaking,thenitisfortunatethatHollywoodscreenwritersmanagedtheirownresearchforsolong. Shotwell oversaw a production that eschewed the recent developments in historical filmmaking, the arguments and correctives to the traditionalnarrative,thathadmotivatedsomanyoftheearlysound-era historicalfilms.Healsoseemedanxioustoseparatefilmedhistoryfrom therespectableformofwrittenhistory,andinthe1939World’sFairprogram introduction, which sounds like an apology to his colleagues, he wrote:“Itisnot,therefore,asarivaltothewrittenwordthatthisnarrative ispresented....Ratheritisanewandchallengingwayofevokingthepast and contemplating the present, one designed to enrich and strengthen ourinterestinthestorywhichhistoriansprovide.”29Thepressfoundthe film stirring and suitably serious;30 World’s Fair audiences were happy, andalthoughthe1941generalreleasewasnotagreatsuccess,DeMille
Conclusion 317
and Hays’s impressment of American history in the service of contemporarywarworkpleasedthestudios.YetShotwell,whohadbeenHays’s choicetolendthefilmsomehistoricalprestige,reaffirmedthebalance ofpowerbetweenfilmmakersandrealhistorians.Inthepasttenyears, Americanhistoricalfilmmakinghadbecometraditionalhistoriography’s rival,andfarfromignoringthewrittenword,ithadappropriatedtheold tools of historiography to form a popular and critical audience that no historiancouldeverhopetomatch.Yet,paradoxically,thecycle’ssuccess wouldbecomeitsnemesis. In the years since 1930, American historical filmmaking had been transformed from an experimental and sometimes innovative prestige practicetoalucrativebusiness.HistoricalperiodsandfiguresinAmericanhistorycouldinitiatebattlesbetweenDarrylZanuckandJackWarner orWarnerandDavidO.Selznick.Itwasathrivingbusinessformulafor allthestudios.ButLandofLiberty’sreleasesuggeststhatthecyclewas nearlyfinished.ItsrunattheWorld’sFair,intendedtohonorAmerican historyinthecinema,mayhavehadthestudios’individualcooperation, butthefilmwasaretrospective.Hadthecycleended?Mostofthefilmmakerswhoseworkwasshowcasedinthefilmhadlefthistoricalfilmmaking.By1940,HowardEstabrookhadgivenupallhistoricalscreenwriting, and Nunnally Johnson was turning producer-director. Dudley Nichols was disgusted with Hollywood mediocrity and went back to Connecticut.SidneyHowardwasdead.Selznickwasexhausted.Zanuckapproached the production of Lillian Russell with uncharacteristic indifference. Hal WallisandMichaelCurtizwerefedupwithRobertBuckner,ErrolFlynn, and the whole superwestern cycle. Jeanette MacDonald’s and Mae West’scareerswerefaltering.HenryFondaemergedfromTheGrapesof Wrath even more determined to leave Zanuck and the historical roles thathadmadehisreputation.31DeMilleabandonedmajorAmericanhistoricalfiguresandeventsfortheperipheralCanadianRockies(Northwest MountedPolice,1941)andasexed-upKeyWestshippingsaga(Reapthe WildWind,1942).CriticssuchasFrankS.NugentandHowardBarnes wereboredordismissive.By1940,Cimarronanditsreceptionseemedto belongtoanotherera.
RKO,RaisingKanein1941 RKO’s expensive 1931 bid for equality with the major studios had not endeditscommitmenttomakinghistoricalpictures,butthroughoutthe 1930s,thoseeffortswerecircumscribedbypoorfinances.Thestudiowas
318 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
always one step away from bankruptcy, and as Ginger Rogers recalled, productionchiefschangedsofrequentlythatoneneverknewwhosename wouldbeonthefrontofficedoor.32RKOwasnottheonlystudiofacing ableakfuture;antitrustsuitsandthelostforeignmarketsfilledthepages ofVarietyin1939and1940.Butin1940,thenewheadofproduction, GeorgeSchaefer,ignoredtheindustrialwarningsandpushedthestudio oncemoretowardthevanguardofhistoricalfilmmaking.JustasWilliam LeBaronhadoncepurchasedanexpensiveEdnaFerbernovelandhired BroadwaytalentHowardEstabrook,SchaefernowimportedRobertSherwood to write the screen adaptation of his Pulitzer Prize–winning play AbeLincolninIllinois.Althoughthefilmreceivedagreatdealofcriticalpraise,particularlyfromNewYorkcritics,33onlyabox-officemiracle wouldhavesavedtheexpensivefilmfromtheredink.Schaefermusthave beenworried,forthatyearhealsoinvestedinanotherinnovativeBroadwayentertainer,OrsonWelles.34Duringthelate1930s,Welleshadtested thelimitsoftheatricaltradition,producingthefirstall-blackMacbethand courtingpubliccontroversywithTheCradleWillRock.Boredandrestless onBroadway,WellesacceptedRKO’soffertogivehimcompleteartistic controloverhisnexttwofilms.35 Itwasanunprecedenteddeal,especiallyforonewithnofilmmaking experienceandanerraticreputation.Theindustrywasworried.Asfilm historianRobertCarringerwrote,bygivingWellescontroloverthefinal cut,“Schaeferhadviolatedoneofthemostsacredcanonsoftheindustry.”36ButSchaefer,courtingprestigeandfollowingthepolicyofhispredecessorWilliamK.LeBaron,tookanotherexceptionalchance.37Welles, however,continuedtoshock,andafterhisfirsttourofthestudio,hemade an offhand remark that Hollywood would never forget. Asked what he thoughtofthemovies,Welleslaughedandsaid,“Ithinkit’sthegreatest trainsetaboyeverhad.”Whethercandidordramaticallycalculated,this response was ill timed. Filmmaking had become a legitimate business andseriousartinthemindsandwordsofmanyHollywoodfilmmakers. Thepasttenyearsofhistoricalpictureshadbeenacrucialcontribution tothisadvance,andmanyconsidereditamagnanimousgestureforHollywoodtoallowaBroadwayunknowntocontrolhisownfilmworkasifhe wereaCecilB.DeMille.Welles’sdismissalofthefilmindustryasachild’s toyhardlyendearedhimtoHollywood’selite. Over the next few months, Welles continued to make professional decisionsthatwidenedtheriftbetweenhimandthestudio.Herefused tobeintegratedintotheproductionsystem.Ratherthanlearningtowork withaHollywoodcast,hebroughthisMercuryTheaterCompanytoHol-
Conclusion 319
lywood.HisadaptationofHeartofDarknesswentoverbudgetandwas deemedapoorbox-officerisk.Hisnextadaptation,ofCecilDay-Lewis’s espionagethrillerSmilerwithaKnife,failedwhenCaroleLombardrefusedtostarinit.38Realizingthathewasintrouble,WellesaskedthestudiotohirescreenwriterHermanMankiewicztoshowhimthemechanics ofgoodscreenwriting.Itwasaninterestingpartnership.Mankiewiczhad been one of the first to realize the potential power of screenwriters in sound cinema. In the late 1920s he had lured some of the best writers fromNewYork,includingBenHecht,NunnallyJohnson,andhisyoungerbrotherJoseph.Manyofthembecameimportantfilmmakersthrough theirhistoricalscripts,andMankiewiczhaddoctoredhisshare,including TheRoyalFamilyofBroadway,Bombshell,andTheGreatZiegfeld.But havingworkedprimarilyatMGMandParamount,Mankiewiczdidnot achievetheautonomyofsomeofhispeersatRKO,WarnerBrothers,and TwentiethCentury–Fox.Hewasalwaysoneofseveralwritersworkingon ascriptandoftendidnotreceivescreencredit. Inhissparetime,though,Mankiewiczwroteoriginalscreenplays.Althoughtheywereunproduced,hisbiographiesofevangelistAimeeSempleMcPhersonandJohnDillingertestifiedtothecurrentwisdomthat historicalwritingwasthewayoutofhackwriting.39Hepreferredwriting about his generation’s most controversial figures, people who achieved national status in the newspapers before becoming historical material. WhenFrankCaprapersuadedHarryCohntobuyRobertRiskin’s1930 playaboutMcPherson,BlessYouSister(laterreleasedwithBarbaraStanwyckasTheMiracleWoman,1931),thestudiohadtocamouflageasmany historicalreferencesaspossible.40Severalyearsafterhisdeath,Dillinger remained an even more dangerous topic. Although the press loved to fosterrumorsaboutanimpendingDillingerbiopic,41afterScarface’snotoriousnationalreception,Hayshadmadeitnearlyimpossibleforabiographicalgangsterfilmtoreachtheaters.In1940,althoughMankiewicz wasatanotherlowinhiscareer,WellesencouragedhimtowriteatreatmentofanideatheyhaddiscussedinNewYork.Mankiewicz’sensuing originalscreenplaywasabiographyofaprominentnewspapermanand publicfigure,afusionofmodernhistoryanditsjournalisticcounterpart. Thescriptwasno“imagined”biography,andasitdeveloped,Welleskept publicityincheckandaclosedsettokeeptheidentityoftheirsubjecta secret.InlieuofDillinger,Mankiewiczhadchosenhisgeneration’snext mostcontroversialfiguretofilm:WilliamRandolphHearst. Inaninfamous1971article,criticPaulineKaelreassertedthecentrality of Mankiewicz and William Randolph Hearst in the authorship
320 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
andproductionofCitizenKane.42Itwasaboldmoveatatimewhenacademicfilmstudieswasgainingcredibilitybyfocusingondirectorialstyle and eliminating the importance of historical content. Christian Metz’s semioticstudiesoffilmformvalorizedthestructureoffilmnarration,but contentwasanareabeneathnotice.Inthe1960sand1970sthestudyof filmhistoryhadfartoomanyconnotationsoftheout-of-date(TerryRamsaye’sfilmhistory),thehonorific(WilliamK.Everson’sfilmseries),the sensational(CharlesHigham’sstarbiographies),andthedownrightfilthy (KennethAnger’sHollywoodBabylon).Kael’sinvestigationofHearstand MankiewiczseemedtobeanattackontheauthorialpowerofWellesand anattempttomarginalizeindividualvisualstylewhileraisingthebanal contributionofHollywoodwritingandgossip.ThefactthatKaelwasnot anacademicbutacriticfortheNewYorkerwasjustasirritating. Withtime,therecentreconceptualizationoffilmhistory,andRobert Carringer’scarefulstudyTheMakingofCitizenKane,Hearst’spresence hasbeenadmittedintocanonicalaccountsofCitizenKane.43Butscholars oftenuseHearstasmerelyhistoricalshorthandtoexploreWelles’smore fascinating examinations of American isolationism (Laura Mulvey) and themythichero(MorrisBeja).44Welles’scomplexobjectiveversussubjectivecinematicvision,visualmetaphors,andspectacularparablesstill motivatetheappraisalsbyJamesNaremore,DavidBordwell,andDudleyAndrew.45Withinthisframework,thefilm’smeditationsonnostalgia, time,andtheimpossibilityofobjectivevisionallspringfromWellesand his personally marked cinematic style. To acknowledge Mankiewicz as the“author”wouldseemtovalorizethetext,thescript,andthehistorical precedent over the image and the creative genius of the filmmaker, so filmstudiescontinuetoavoidMankiewiczandhiscomplexinterpretationofAmericanhistory.ButwithinWilliamRandolphHearst’scareer as a journalist, within the trajectory of post–Civil War history, within Mankiewicz’soriginalscriptandWelles’sfilmlietheessentialconflicts between objective and subjective accounts of the past and the struggle againstAmericandecline.Forthepasttenyears,theselayersofhistoricalknowledgehadbeensomeoftheorganiccomponentsofHollywood’s Americanhistoricalcycle.
CitizenHearst Mankiewicz and Welles’s selection of Hearst as the subject of a major historicalfilmviolatedmanyofthemorerecentformulasinscreenbiographies. “Willie” Hearst was no pioneer who made good through ef-
Conclusion 321
fortandeducation.Itwashisfather,GeorgeHearst,whowasbornina poorMissourifrontiersettlementandwitnessedthe1849goldstrike.It wasGeorgewhomadetheHearstmillionsinsilverandcopper;became the good-hearted, boisterous, self-made man; and ended his life with a government career and public respect.46 Indeed, mining colleagues of Hearst’sfathersuchasH.A.W.TaborandleadingCalifornianssuchas JohnSutterbecamethesubjectsforearlysound-erahistoricalfilms(Silver DollarandSutter’sGold).Infact,consideringhislog-cabinbirth,southern roots, Confederate sympathies during the Civil War, and longtime residenceinSanFrancisco,itissurprisingthatGeorgeHearstwasnever thesubjectofaDepression-erahistoricalfilm.GeorgeHearsthadallthe rawhumor,shrewdness,andcommonsenseofaLincolnandthewealth andflamboyanceofaDiamondJimBrady. Hisonlyson,Willie,wasanothermatter.BornduringtheCivilWar inSanFrancisco,Williewasaspoiledheir.Hismothertookhimonhis firstEuropeantourwhenhewasten,andbeforehewastwentyhehad beenexpelledfromHarvard.InJanuary1887Georgegaveuponmaking himasteadycitizenandbusinessmanandgaveWilliethestrugglingSan FranciscoExaminerwithgreatmisgivings.Forthenextfiftyyears,William Randolph Hearst would remain the national press’s most towering and temperamentalstar,amanwhobeganbyattackingthecorruptCalifornia railroad industry and providing moving human-interest stories, but whoendedup“inventing”newsandfomentingtheinternationaldisaster oftheSpanish-AmericanWar.AsbiographerW.A.Swanbergwrote,“In truth,Hearstwasnotanewspapermanatallintheconventionalsense. He was an inventor, a producer, and arranger. The news that actually happenedwastoodullforhim,andbesidesitwasalsoavailabletoother papers.Helivedinachildlikedreamworld,imaginingwonderfulstories andthengoingoutandcreatingthem,sothatthelinebetweenfactand fancywasapttobefuzzy.”47Accordingtohisantagonisticcontemporary JosephPulitzerandhisbiographerFerdinandLundberg,48Hearstcared nothingforobjectivityandthediscoveryofnews.Hewantedtocreatehis own American legend, one as different as possible from the traditional Americansuccessstorythatwashisfather’slife. His reportage of the Spanish-American War in 1898 was a turning point in his career, the moment when he forsook the crusading inspirationofhisearlyantirailroaddaysforthenotorietyandcirculationincreases ofyellowjournalism.Oneofhismostnotorious aphorisms was directedatartistFredericRemington,aHearstemployeewhohadbeen assignedtoHavanatocovertheCubanrebellionagainstSpain.Reming-
322 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
ton,seeingnoprospectofwar,hadcabledHearstthathewantedtoreturn to New York. Hearst replied, “Please remain. You furnish the pictures andI’llfurnishthewar.”49Inanensuingonslaughtofpresscoverageby his papers, Hearst exaggerated the Spanish menace, fabricated eyewitnessreportsofimperialbrutality,andchampionedtheexclusivestoryof captiverebelEvangelinaCosioyCisneros.50Americanslearnedtohate Spain,andwhentheMainesank,Hearst’sjingoismandimperialhatred increased tenfold. Yet for all his vaunted muscular democracy, Hearst’s presscampaignagainstSpain’spresenceintheWesternHemispherelaid thefoundationsforanewageofAmericanimperialism,onefoundednot onspheresoftradebutonspheresoffrontierrhetoric.AsGeorgeHearst respresentedthetraditionalnineteenth-centuryfroniterhero,soWilliam RandolphHearstembodiedtheimperialcorruptionofthefrontierideologyinthetwentiethcentury.HistorianWilliamApplemanWilliams tracedthelegacyofthefrontier,commentinginTheTragedyofAmericanDiplomacy,“WhenAmericansthoughtthatthecontinentalfrontier was gone, they advanced and accepted the argument that continued expansionintheformofoverseaseconomicandeventerritorialexpansionprovidesthebest,ifnottheonly,waytosustaintheirfreedomand prosperity.”51 Hearst’snotorietyasamasteryellowjournalisteventuallycausedhis failureinpoliticsandhisdecisiontospendtheremainderofhisfather’s millionsontheproductionofmotionpictures.DuringtheGreatWarhis InternationalPicturesproducedthexenophobicbutsuccessfulserialPatria,andduringthe1920shiswealthandfriendshipwithLouisB.Mayer securedamergeroftheirfilmcompanies.Hearst’srelationshipwithMayer,hismultiplecollaborationswithactressMarionDavies,andthecreationofhispalatialretreatSanSimeonprovidedthebaseforhisalmost feudalsocialinfluenceinthefilmcommunity.52Asurprisingnumberof Davies’sfilmsforHearstwereperiodsubjects(includingLittleOldNew York, 1923, and Janice Meredith, 1924), yet only Operator 13, released lateintheactress’scareerin1934,maintainedanyinterestinpresenting ahistoricalbackgroundindependentofDavies’scharacter.Atthesame timethatHearstwasfinancingoneofthenewAmericanhistoricalfilms, oneofhisreporters,WillisJ.Abbot,wasrememberinghisyearsworking fortheHearstpapers.Abbot’sbookdescribedthetrueyellowjournalist as one who“canworkhimselfintoquiteasfierya fever of enthusiasm overaChristmasfundorasqualidmurder,asoverawarorapresidential campaign. He sees everything through magnifying glasses and can makeafirst-pagesensationoutofastorywhichamoresoberpaperwould
Conclusion 323
dismiss with a paragraph inside.”53 Curiously, Abbot’s comments about Hearst’spresssenseresonatewithcontemporarycensorsandlate-twentieth- centuryhistorians’viewsofclassicalHollywoodhistoricalfilms:thepreoccupation with trivia, the inaccuracies, the films of the wrong events and notorious people, the callow narratives. And although it would be difficulttojustifyHearst’s1898warcoverage,hisearlycrusadesagainst theestablishmentandhisdesiretoproviderealnewsforrealpeopleon thestreets54resembledthevisionsoffilmmakerssuchasDarrylZanuck, DavidSelznick,andevenOrsonWelles.
TheAmerican Although Welles and Mankiewicz would later stake separate claims as sole author of Citizen Kane, and although scholars have continued to debate whether the film was entirely an auteur’s masterpiece or a Hollywoodcollaboration,Carringersensiblycreditedmuchofthehistorical contentinthefirstscriptof“TheAmerican,”linkingCharlesFosterKane andWilliamRandolphHearst,toHermanMankiewicz.55WhatCarringerneglectedinhisanalysisoftheHearstconnectionwasMankiewicz’s careerasapart-timehistoricalscreenwriterandscriptdoctor,hisfamiliaritywiththeevolvinghistoricalcycleinHollywoodanditsprestige,and thepossibilitythatthesuccessfulapplicationofthehistoricalapproach might saveWelles’sandhisownreputations.56But as both would soon discover,selectingHearstasthesubjectofamajorhistoricalmotionpicturecouldprovefatal.AlthoughHearsthadcourtedpublicattentionin hisyouth,sincethewarandFranklinRoosevelt’selection,hehadbeen thesubjectofincreasedandsometimeslibelouscriticism.ByJune1937, hewasforcedtorelinquishfinancialcontrolofhispublishingenterprises. AlthoughhebecamearecluseatSanSimeon,astructurelaterdescribed as“oneman’srevoltagainsthistory,”57HearstcouldstillwieldconsiderablepowerinHollywood. When Mankiewicz completed the treatment in April 1940, “The American”wasoverthreehundredpagesandhadsomanyobviousreferences to Hearst that even Welles felt compelled to edit some of the moreinflammatorycontents.58Inthebeginning,Kane’sparentsarethe poor owners of a Colorado boardinghouse, but his mother is left a fortune from a miner’s claim, and the stuffy businessman Walter Thatcher,Charlie’snewlyappointedguardian,takestheyoungsteronatourof thebigcities.MankiewiczclearlydrewfromHearst’sAnacondamining inheritance, his parents’ pioneer roots and upbringing, his headstrong
324 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
devotion to his mother, and his own will. Mankiewicz writes of Kane’s earlyinspirednewspaperdays,hisyoungpaperstrugglingagainsttheentrenchedreputationoftheChronicle,hisobsessionwithcirculation,his flagrant and cheerful use of blackmail to get stories. In this first draft, Mankiewicz even paraphrases Hearst’s famous remark to Remington,59 andwithhisslowabandonmentoftheDeclarationofPrinciplesinfavor ofincreasingcirculationandcreatingnews,Kanefallsinexorablyfrom public figure to demagogue. As he moves into the international stage, heencountersaparadoxicalsenseofisolationthatissalvedonlypartially bycompulsiveantiquebuyingandayoungerwoman.Butevenwithhis massivereputation,MankiewiczimpugnstheKane/Hearstimage.Heis nohero.AsThatcherwritesinhisdiary:“Fiftyyearsaftermydeath,Iam confident that the whole world will agree with my opinion of Charles FosterKane,assumingthatheisnotcompletelyforgotten,whichIregard asextremelylikely.”60EvenKanerealizesthatheisnotagreatmaninthe traditionalsenseandcannevercompetewiththelikesofAbrahamLincoln. WhilecourtingEmily,thepresident’sniece,onavisittotheWhiteHouse,he looksataportraitofLincoln.“I’mafraidthatifI’dbeenbornarail-splitter— I’dbearail-splitternow,”hesays.61 Intheseconddraft,WellesremovedreferencestoHearst’s(Kane’s) expulsionfromcollege,arenderingofthe“stolen”electionthatHearst had lost to Tammany supporters years before, gossipy tidbits about his first-nighterstatusinNewYork,andanespeciallydangerousreferenceto thedeathofoneofMarionDavies’s(Susan’s)loverswhileatSanSimeon (Xanadu)—the mysterious death of Hollywood director Thomas Ince aboardayacht.Instead,WellesbolsteredthelovetriangleofKane,Emily,andSusan.Whetherherealizeditornot,Welles’semendationswere merelywhatZanuckhaddonetoDrumsalongtheMohawk,Selznickto GonewiththeWind,andHalWallistoDodgeCityayearago.Yetparadoxically,evenwithWelles’salterations,Kane’s(Hearst’s)tiestoAmericanhistoryareunbrokenandevenenhanced. Afterseeingthefilm,oneofHearst’sbiographers,FerdinandLundberg,broughtsuitagainstRKOforplagiarism.Indeed,Carringerpointed outthatseveralfactsaboutthedatesanddetailsofHearst’sacquisitionof theExaminerwereliftedbodilyandinsequencefromLundberg’sImperialHearst.62However,Lundberg’sacerbicandevenlibelousbiography (heaccusedHearstofblowinguptheMainetoprovokewarandboostcirculation)haslittleincommonwithCitizenKane’snarrativebeyondthe majorunalterableeventsinHearst’slife.AccordingtoLundberg,Hearst “hadnointentionofsincerelyfightingonthepeople’sside”inhisearly
Conclusion 325
crusades against the railroads, and his new human-interest stories were merely“forthedelectationofgapingchambermaids.”63Inhisforeword toLundberg’sbiography,historianCharlesBeardcallsHearst“acolossal failure,” but Mankiewicz and Welles’s complex narrative, with its multipleandconflictingperspectives,isnotaspolemicalordamning.Itthus seemsfarmorelikelythatOliverCarlsonandErnestSutherlandBates’s contemporaneousHearst,LordofSanSimeon,whichadmittedthebiases ofanybiography,wasMankiewicz’sprimarysource.Theirintroduction couldhavebeenWelles’sstoryoutline:“Thesettingwillbefoundinhis dividedinheritanceoftemperamentandideals,hisprivilegedupbringing,hisCaliforniabackgroundofraucouswealth,crudeforce,andnoisy demagoguery,andinhisunhappyexperienceswhenwesternimpudence first encounteredeasternsnobbishness...howin his imaginary world suchconceptsastruthandsinceritycametohavenomeaning;howhe wentfrommasqueradetomasqueradenotsomuchtohidehimselfasto findhimself,alwaysfindinganothermask—fromjournalismtopolitics... howhegrewoldandhardeneduntilHollywoodrevivedhim.”64 Inthelaststagesbetweenpressandgeneralrelease,therumorsthat CitizenKanewasabiographyofHearstandthatthefilmwouldbesuppressedweresostrongthatHearstpapersbannedanymentionofthefilm (and,foratime,anyRKOproduction).Hearst’sfriendLouisB.MayerattemptedtopurchasethenegativefromRKOinordertodestroyit.65Welles evenissuedastatementinFridaymagazine:“CitizenKaneisnotabout LouellaParson’sboss.Itistheportraitofafictionalnewspapertycoon.”66 RKO’sRichardBaerwassoworriedaboutaHearstlawsuitthathegavea depositioninMay1941claimingthefilm’sfictionalstatus.Thesewere necessaryliesinthefaceofcensorshipandthepossibledestructionofthe negative.AswithScarface’sbackersadecadeago,Welleshadagreatdeal ofsupportfromthenon-Hearstpress.ButwhereasScarface’schampions suchasRobertSherwoodhadpraiseditshonestconfrontationofpostwar AmericaanditsportrayalofAlCapone,manyofCitizenKane’spresssupportersskirtedtheissueofhistoryandignoredMankiewicz’scontribution tothefilm.BosleyCrowtheroftheNewYorkTimeswouldnotevenmentionHearst’snamebutcalledthehistoricalconnections“anuncommon fuss”and“crypticallyalleged”byKanedetractors.67OtisFergussonofthe NewRepublicdidmentionHearstbutdismissedtherelationshipas“distinctlycoincidental.”Hecharacterizedthestory(aWellesinvention)as simply,“Onceuponatimetherewasamanofwhomcertainthingswere remembered.”68Theirdenialofthefilm’shistoricalaspectsandtiestothe cycleweremostlikelyintendedtosaveWellesfromalawsuitandthefilm
326 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
fromsuppression.Instead,theirreviewslaudedWellesasasupremelyinnovativefilmmaker. Crowther,eagertoestablishhimselfafterFrankNugent’sdeparture fromtheNewYorkTimesandtoforgearelationshipwithnewfilmmakers, took particular pleasure in denigrating old Hollywood and the subjects ofhispredecessor’sreviews.ForCrowther,Welles’sdirectionhad“more verveandinspiredingenuitythananyoftheeldercraftsmanhaveexhibitedinyears.”Mankiewiczandthescriptdisappearedfromviewinahaze ofWellescoverage.Intheireffortstopushthefilm’svisualinnovationasa meansofcamouflagingitshistoricalcontent,cameramanGreggToland gaveinterviewsaboutdeep-focusphotographyandrealismandreceived lavishcommendation.69RelationsbetweenWellesandMankiewiczdeteriorated,ashadthosebetweenFordandNicholsoverthehistoricalcontentandauthorshipofStagecoachtwoyearsbefore.Withtheeasternpress coverage,CitizenKanebecameanartisticmilestone,acinematicexperienceindependentoftherestofHollywoodfilmmaking. The laurels Welles received in New York may have reinforced his senseofgenius,forhecontinuedtoasserthisfilm’sfictionalstatusand hisowncreativepowers.AlthoughheresentedHearstandthehistoryreceivingasmuchattentionashedidinHollywood,Wellesneverdenied thefilm’sinspirationfrompost–CivilWarAmericanhistory.Inanother writtendefense,headmitted,“ItwasimpossibleformetoignoreAmericanhistory.”70Throughoutproduction,Wellesnotonlyretainedmostof Mankiewicz’s historical connections and biographical threads but also structuredthemwithanelaboratesystemoftextprologues,constructed newsreelfootage,andvoice-overcommentary.Theforeword,prologue, andnewsreel,whichbothreferencedandimpugnedthestructuraland discursive achievements of historical films of the past ten years, were hardlymentionedbythepress.LikemanyoftheseearlierAmericanhistoricalfilms,CitizenKane’smostcontroversialmaterialwasdevelopedin thescript,notbythecamera.AlthoughPaulineKael,RobertCarringer, LauraMulvey,andMorrisDicksteinnotedWelles’sindebtednesstothe biopic cycle, Welles’s historical perspective, his dual engagement with both American history and film historiography of the past decade, has neverbeensufficientlyacknowledged.InspiteofCitizenKane’scritical acclaimasabrilliantanomalyinHollywoodcinema,astheharbingerof amorematurefilmtechnique,Wellesalwaysconceivedofhisfilmasan Americanbiography,hisnarrativeaspartofAmericanhistory.Fromthe outset,WelleswasobsessedwithrewritingandreconsideringAmerica’s post–CivilWarpast,andhisfilmmustbereconsideredasaresponseto
Conclusion 327
Hollywood’s now fully established historical cycle and a return to the historicalpossibilitiesinitiatedbyCimarronyearsbefore.Schaefer,well aware of RKO’s history, had one ambition in 1939–1940: to improve RKO’sprestigeoutputandbankability.Adecadeago,WilliamLeBaron’s expensiveinvestmentinEdnaFerber($125,000)andHowardEstabrook had briefly made RKO the leader in prestige pictures, but in the years since, thestudiohadbeenforcedtocutcornersand historical productionsasitscompetitorsoutdistanceditwithAmericanhistoricalfilms.In 1940–1941,RKOandCitizenKanedidmorethanreturntotheproductiongamblesofthepast;theyreinterpretedthestudio’smostcontroversial andacclaimedproduction:Cimarron. Mankiewicz,morefamiliarwiththemechanicsofhistoricalcinema, envisionedthecompleteprologueinthefirstdraftof“TheAmerican.” As in The Roaring Twenties, a newsreel resembling Henry Luce’s “The MarchofTime”documentedthelifeofWelles’srecentlydeceasedprotagonist,CharlesFosterKane,amajornewspaperpublisherandpublic figure.AsinCimarron,thefilmusedacomplexseriesofdatesuperimpositionsandprojectedtexttitles.TheearliestdraftfromApril1940hasa twenty-three-pagehistoricalprologuethat,liketheentiretyofCimarron, unitesthemajordatesinpost–CivilWarhistorytothepresentwiththe lifespanofoneman(1865–1941).Intheopeningreelsofthefilm,Welles andMankiewiczpresenttheestablishmentviewofKane,anewsreelaccountofhispublicpersonaandprominentrolesinaseriesofnational andinternationalincidentsfromtheSpanish-AmericanWartotheGreat WartotheriseofAdolfHitler.Theimagesareeclecticfragmentsfrom the past, spatially and temporally disjunctive and sutured by projected andspokentext:1906,theyearoftheSanFranciscoearthquakeandfire; 1918, the armistice; 1898, the Spanish-American War; 1910 and 1922, punctuatedwithdocumentaryfootageshowingtheoilscandals,suffrage and the Nineteenth Amendment, Prohibition, and the introduction of FDR and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Mankiewicz planned to use actual newsreel clips of William Jennings Bryan (another associate of Hearst),Stalin,AlSmith,McKinley,Landon,andRoosevelt.Kanewould laterbeseeninthecompanyofstageandscreenperformersGeorgeM. CohanandAlJolson.Therewastobenoboundarybetweenhistoryand journalism;eveneventsof1941wouldbecontainedwithintheiconographyandstructuresofhistoricalfilmmaking. AccompanyingthegreatstoryofAmericaistheoddcounterpointand decline of Kane’s influence and life. Sometimes America’s and Kane’s fatesareintertwined.Onscreen,thenarratortellsofKane’ssupportofthe
328 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
RememberingtheGreat War:agraveyardin 1919.(CitizenKane)
Spanish-AmericanWarwithashotofTeddyRooseveltparadingthrough cheeringcrowds.ThenKane’s“opposedparticipationinanother”war— World War I—is shown, not with cheering crowds (which would have invalidatedKane’santiwarstance)butwithasilentshotofmilesofAmerican grave markers in Flanders. As far as the Great War was concerned inthe1920sand1930s,historyvindicatedKane.Wealsoareshownhis recedingnewspaperinfluenceandmassivewealth,thehighlightsofhis luridromancesandreclusivelifestyle.MankiewiczandWellesintroduce thenewsreeltechniquefamiliartoallcinemagoers.Yetasmanyfilmhistorianshavenoticed,thisseeminglypreciseandobjectiveaccountofKane’s relationshiptoAmericanhistoryisproblematicfromtheoutset.Contrastingperspectivesonhislife(fascist,communist)seemtobesilencedby thetextofhisownwordssuperimposedonthescreen:“Iam,havebeen, andwillbeonlyonething—anAmerican.”Textwouldseemtosilence the strident businessmen and Union Square orators, to stop the glut of documentaryimages,andtounifythetrajectoryofhislifeandAmerican historywithinonepersonalstatement.ButKane’swords,silentlysuperimposedonablackscreenandlackingavoice,arealsoincompleteand ambiguous. TheironyofthissequenceisonethatHearsthimselfhadtoendure. Kane, the arbiter of text who once determined the tone of American newsprint,loseshisholdovertheprintedword,andneartheendofhis life,othernewspapersareabletonarratehisdeclineandlossofinfluence. Superficially,thenewsreelhasthemonotonousandvauntedimpartiality of DeMille’s assemblage and narration in Land of Liberty. Kane’s pro-
Conclusion 329
Kane’sdeclaration. (CitizenKane)
loguealsohasthedocumentaryfootageandsparseproseassociatedwith thejournalisticobjectivityclaimedbyHearst’sarchrivalJosephPulitzer. Butevenwiththeomniscienttotalizingcontrolofthevoice-overandthe historicaltextinserts,thefragmentedfootagesubvertstheillusionoftextualcompletion.Themomenttheofficialscreeningendsandthelights goupintheprojectionroom,thenewseditorsendsareporterinsearch ofthe“realstory.” The official text, reminiscent of previous American historical prologuesandforewords,issupersededbyWelles’snewvisualhistory.71So beginthecontrastinghistories—thedisjunctive,episodic,establishment newsreelhistoryandthenonlinear,contradictory,personalvisualhistory. FilmtheoristGarrettStewartcharacterizedtheseflashbacksasthe“outtakes”oftheNewsontheMarchfilm,themomentswhenconsciousness anddurationaresubsumedby“thereplayofhistory’smechanical(edited) time.”72Welles’svisualinvestigationofKane’spastrestoreswhathistorical documentation,text,andtraditionalbiographieshaveexcisedfromhistoriography:asenseoftime,complexdevelopment,andapersonalinternal acknowledgmentofdeathanddecline.OneofWelles’sandMankiewicz’s mostevocativehistoricaljuxtapositionsoccurswhenThompson(thereporter)hashisfirstencounterwithKane’spastinthesepulchralThatcher library.73 Shortly after watching an official biographical documentary on CharlesFosterKane,anewspapereditorsendsoneofhisreportersoffto findtherealstorybehindKane’slife.Thompson’sfirststopistelling:the libraryandarchiveofWalterP.Thatcher.Thisyoungjournalist-turned-
330 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
The“vault”ofthe Thatcherlibrary. (CitizenKane)
historian, a nondescript Beckeresque Everyman, has been primed with official photographs; key public events; film footage of famous Americans;impersonal,rigidnewstype;andthebooming,pompousoratoryof anestablishmentnarrator.Hisfirstencounterwiththelibrarywouldseem toportendmoreofthesamemonumentalimagesofpublicsuccessand wealth: Thatcher’s library is a pharaoh’s tomb, complete with a looming,larger-than-lifebronzeeffigy,forbiddingacolytesandguards,anda cavernousreadingroom.Thompsonentersthereadingroom.Initsdark, echoingcenterisalongtablecutfromabovebyaprojectedbeamoflight. TheattendantreverentlyplacesthetextThompsonseekswithinthecircle oflight.InKane’sofficialscreenbiography,Thompsonhadviewedthe projectedtextofnationalandinternationalnewsheadlinesandintertitles strippedfromtheirimagecontexts.Althoughthewrittenmemoirisalso caughtwithinaprojectedbeamoflight,Thompsonholdsthishistorical artifactandhistoricaltextwithinhisgrasp.Thatcher’shandwritteninterpretationofthepastisanelementalformofhistoriography,orthewriting ofhistory,thathehasneverencountered. ThestraightandelegantVictorianscriptofThatcher’sjournalisthe first subjective textual account on view in the film. Thompson’s gaze, alignedwiththecamera,isconfinedtothetext,whichrecallsindetail youngThatcher’sfirstmeetingwithCharlieKanein1871.Thecamera pansslowlyinthelaboriousactofreadingasBernardHerrmann’sscore punctuatesfilmictimewithaquaveringticktock.Thentheflowingscript andscorereleaseThompsonandthecamerafromthearchivaltombof theThatcherlibrary;thetempoacceleratesintoadissolvingrushofopen
Conclusion 331
westernlandscapesandbracingsnow.HereThompsonreadshiswayfrom thegrimploddingofwrittenhistorytothecinematicromanticismofthe westernpast.NoNewsontheMarchimpersonalvoice-overorofficialtext couldachievesuchhistoricalfreedomandcompleteness;itisasubjective documentandThatcher’spersonal,writtenperspectivethatfirstinspire thecinematoexploreandthensupersedethelimitationsoftraditional historiography.Afterall,itiswithinthecinematicflashbackthatwehave alltheanswerstoThompson’shistoricalquestions:Rosebudisclutched inyoungCharlie’sgrasp,and,accordingtoCharlie’sexuberantcry,the LincolnRepublicisimmortal(“TheUnionForever!”).Butasreadersof thishistory,ourunderstanding,likeThompson’s,isimperfect.Wedonot seethecomplete,pristineperfectionofHermanMankiewicz’sandOrson Welles’scinematichistory.PerhapsmorethananyothersequenceinCitizenKane,Thompson’sencounterwiththetextdevelopsacounterpoint ofwrittenandvisualhistory;throughtheabandonmentofofficial,documentedhistoryandaconfrontationwithanacknowledgedsubjectivetext, itexploresthepossibilityofacompletefilmicwritingofAmericanhistory duringthegoldenageofclassicalHollywoodcinema. Inmanyways,CitizenKaneseemsbothsequeltoandparodyofthe Americanhistoricalfilm,withitsRoaringTwenties–inspirednewsreel,its publicantihero(GabrielovertheWhiteHouse,1933),anditscriticallook atpopularAmericanjournalism(HisGirlFriday,1940).74ButitsresemblancetoCimarronisunusualanddeservesmoreattentionthanapassingiteminapotentialgenealogy.Bothfilmnarrativesbuildasymbiotic relationshipbetweenhistoryandjournalismfromthenineteenthcentury
Thompsonreads Thatcher’sjournal. (CitizenKane)
ReadingfromthetextofhistorytothecinematicWest.(CitizenKane)
Historicalcompletion and“theUnionforever.” (CitizenKane)
Conclusion 333
throughthepresent.Oldimagesareimbuedwithdocumentaryimmediacy,andcontemporaryeventsarestructuredwithintheiconographyof thehistoricaltext.Kane,likeYanceyCravatandHearst,isanewspapermanandanativewesterner.UnlikeYancey,though,Kanehasneverhad toearnhislivelihood;hepicksupreportingasawhim.LikeYanceyand Hearst,earlyinhiscareerheenjoysexposinginjusticeandhelpingthe poor.Heseeshisworkaspartofthehistoricstrugglefordemocracyand freedom,evengoingsofarastodocumenthismissionina“Declaration ofPrinciples”thathehopeswillbeasvaluableastheDeclarationofIndependenceandtheConstitution.Butin1898,thingschange,andKane stops following the heroic path established by his forebears. For both MankiewiczandWelles,1898isacrucialyearinKane’sdevelopment.In allthescriptedtextandnewsreelprologues,itistheonedatethatdisrupts thechronologicalorderofKane’slifeandtheAmericanpast;thenarrator movesfrom1906to1918,andthenretreatstoKane’sinfluenceonthe Spanish-AmericanWar.75 AlthoughCitizenKane’snewsprologuecoverseventsspanning1865 to1941,muchofwhathappenstoKaneintheseriesofflashbacksoccurs in1898.BeginningwithThatcher’shandwrittendiary,KaneisseeninstigatingtheSpanish-AmericanWar,birthingyellowjournalism,luringtop reportersawayfromtheChronicletoworkforhim,leavingforEurope, andmarryingapresident’sniece.Theadvantageousbutlovelessmarriage will be his political undoing; his willingness to sacrifice his principles injournalismprefaceshispersonaldecay.Thepersonalandthepublic becomehopelesslyentangledin1898,justasAmericanhistoryofficially turnsfromitsself-sufficientindividualismandmakesaninternationalimperialistsplashinCubaandthePhilippines.ThereafterKanewillgoto Europe,rebuildaEuropeancastleinAmerica(asunlikealogcabinas possible),flirtwithHitlerandMussolini,anddestroyhisDeclarationof Principles as viciously as these European dictators violated treaties. In all these international excursions, Kane betrays his national heritage. Although born in a western log cabin with a strong Nancy Hanks–like motherandaweak-willedfather,KaneisnonewLincoln.76Astheprologueremindsuswithashotofhistombstone,Kanewasbornin1865, in the year of Lincoln’s death, the symbolic end of Lincoln’s Republic andthedawnofthegildedindustrialageofmoneyandpowerwithout obligation. Sorties into his post–Civil War childhood become journeys intoamythicwildernessoffrontiermetaphorsandendlesswinter,alonely counterpointtohispubliclife.77ThestrengthofAmericanhistoryseemsto lieinitsisolation;Kane’sparticipationineventsaftertheSpanish-American
334 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
War—theGreatWar,thedisastrousforaysintoshowmanshipattheChicago Opera House, the Depression—are all part of national decay, a betrayalofthewesternfrontier“childhood”andtheLincolnRepublic. AsAmericabecomesolderandincreasinglyinternationalinitspolitical reach,tradingthecontinentalfrontierforimperialconquestsandEuropean“crusades,”Kanehimselfbecomesmorepersonallyisolated.Onthe eveofAmerica’sinvolvementintheSecondWorldWar,hewilldie,unabletocopewiththislasthistoricalbreech,yetstillclutchingtheemblem ofhischildhood—thesnowglobe,withitsfrontierlandscape,apetrified historicalartifact.78 Within Welles’s more personal and complex visual history, encompassedbythemultiple-flashbackstructure,Kane’slifeisnotrevealedin chronological order. After Bernstein remembers Kane’s famous line of contemptforjournalisticauthenticityin1898,thehistoryofKane’slifeis disrupted.Memories,insteadofprogressingto1900,retreatfurtherback tothe1890sandextendagainchronologicallythroughKane’striptoEuropeandhisengagementtopresidentialnieceEmily.There,hefamously bringsbackawholeseriesofEuropeansculpturesandpaintings,ineffect, collectingahistoryandtransportingittothebarrenculturallandscape of the United States. Kane’s mania for collecting is typical of the man searchingforhislostpast.Hecollectsbutdoesnotcreate.Artbecomes bric-a-bracinstorageathisisolatedcastleXanadu. InCimarron,1898isalsoacrucialyear.ThewarsendsYancey,the emblemoftheoldWest,fleeingtoCubatopursuehisempire-building fantasies,butitisanempirethefilmnevershows.ItisnotpartofAmerican history.Thedisruptivepowerof1898isalsooneofCitizenKane’sdeepest tiestoHearst.Hearst’swarmongeringin1898wouldtransformhisreputationasanewspapermantooneofcorruptyellowjournalist,aninventorratherthanaseriousreporterorcommentator.ForKane,theCuban crisisexacerbateshismegalomaniaandhisobsessionwithcirculationand influence.Warboostscirculation.WhereasYanceycorrectsthehistorical record,revealingthetruthbehindthegovernment’smanipulationofthe CherokeeandOsagetribes,Kaneconstructshisownnews,contributing tothedecayofobjectivityinreportingandcomplicatinganynotionof revealinghistoricaltruth.Wellesincorporatesthisinstability,thishistoricaldecline,withintheverystructureofhisnarrative,whichmovesfrom acontemporarynewsreeleulogyandreporter’ssearchbackthroughthe memoriesofKane’slife.CimarronchroniclesthissameperiodinAmericanhistory,counteringtheprogressionoftimewithacriticalsenseofloss. YetYanceyneverbetraysthatwesternheritageortheprinciplesthatmake
Conclusion 335
himagreatAmerican.Hewouldratherloseagubernatorialelectionthan tonedownhisIndianrightsandcitizenshipplank.Kane,however,loses hiselectionthroughmoralcarelessness.AsYanceyhelpsto“writethehistoryoftheOldSouthwest,”hebecomesamythicmemorytothepeopleof Oklahoma.NostalgiaconcludesCimarron,butCitizenKanebeginswith acontemporarydeathandprefiguresfilmhistory’snarrationofdecline. Americanhistorybecomesthescriptofdecline,adeathwithinadeath thatonlycinemanarrateswithanyillusionofcompleteness. AsCitizenKanerevisitedRKO’searlychallengetotraditionalAmericanhistoryinCimarron,italsogatheredmyriadnationalconfrontations andeulogiesprojectedoveradecadeofAmericanhistoricalfilmmaking. CitizenKane’sengagementwiththemythoftheunitedLincolnRepublic,oftheWest,ofrugged,self-mademen,ofcrimeandbetrayalofprinciples in the twentieth century, of confrontations with journalism and the“shaping”ofthetextofhistory,ofshowmanshipandtheatricality,all evokeHollywood’scompetingvisionsforAmericanhistoryreleasedsince theadventofsound.BycontrastingNewsontheMarchwithaseriesof personal flashbacks, Welles and Mankiewicz accommodate both establishmentviewsofthepastandmorecriticalandcontradictoryattitudes. DeMillealsohadtocontendwiththeAmericancinema’sconflictinghistorical approaches, but in Land of Liberty, he chose to edit history for content.Welleswasjustasinterestedinhistoryandcinema’s“outtakes.”
TheMagnificenceoftheAmbersons Welles would continue to pursue themes of American decline in his nextfilm,butwithouttheluridhistoricalgossip,hisadaptationofBooth Tarkington’sTheMagnificentAmbersonswasboundtofail.79AsfilmhistorianV.F.Perkinsacknowledged,evenCitizenKane’shugeandlargely unplannedpublicitydidnotensureitsbox-officesuccess,andSchaefer’s tenure at RKO was limited.80 Although Welles did not have the assistanceofMankiewiczonthisnewscript,hewouldshortlydiscoverthat his autonomy as screenwriter-director-producer was an illusion. Things becameworseinearly1942;theHollywoodelitedeniedWellesthecriticalaccoladesthatmanycriticsexpected.Althoughtheywerewillingto honorMankiewiczandWellesbydefaultinthescreenwritingcategory, AcademyvotersgavethebestpictureanddirectionawardstoZanuckand FordforHowGreenWasMyValley.YetWelles’sinfluenceonhisjealouscolleagueswasunquestionable;in1942,whenMGMattemptedto turn the controversial presidential failure Andrew Johnson into anoth-
336 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
er Charles Foster Kane (Tennessee Johnson), Welles must have enjoyed Mayer’sbox-officedisaster.Americanhistoricalfilmsincreasinglyfocused ondecliningcareersandfailure,andpoorreviewsandscantbox-office returnswouldnotonlycrippleWellesatRKObutalsohitwealthystudios suchasMGM. Tarkington’s novel was a study of an imaginary midwestern family andthewaningoftheirpowerinasmallindustrialtown,anditserved Welles’s interest in filming the post–Civil War decline of America. In some ways, The Magnificent Ambersons was Citizen Kane’s small-town twin.YetWelles’sscriptsindicatethathisinterestinexploringandreworkingtraditionalformsofhistoricalcinemawasalsoindecline.Ambersons haslittleofCitizenKane’sself-conscioushistoricalresonanceandstructure.Therearenotextprologues,superimposeddates,textcommentary, orcaptionsofnationalevents.81TheAmbersonfamilylivesapartfromthe restofthecountryandthetown.Theirdeclineseemstostemfromtheir inabilitytorecognizeorinitiatehistoricalchange.AndréBazinnotedthat thescenes’stillnesswasastarkcontrasttoCitizenKane’sfluidsequence shots.82 Welles chose a simple oral narration without text superimpositions,therebyabandoningthestructuresofhistoricalcinemaforthecharacterofradio.“TheMagnificenceoftheAmbersonsstartedin1873,”he began.In1873,thecountrywasexperiencingthefirstofmanynational financial panics and agricultural declines, yet the magnificence of the Ambersons seems to be untouched by these historical crises. They live apartfromthehistoryofAmericanindustryandaredisconnectedfrom therestofthetown.Wellesnarratesthecharmingperiodasifhehadonly a photo album or a stray issue of Collier’s in front of him. We see and hearaboutold-fashionedautomobiles,antiquatedhats,andetiquette.AlthoughcountlessotherAmericanhistoricalfilmshadusedthesebasicvisualdifferencestogenerateasenseofhistory,Wellesmadethesequalities offashion,design,andmannerstheequivalentofahistoricalforeword. Theseinsubstantialvisualqualitiesbecomethehistoricalfoundationof theAmbersonfamilyandperhapsaccountfortheireventualdecline. TherearenoAmbersonsonstocarryontheline,onlyadaughter, Isobel.GeorgeMinafer,herson,treatseveryonearoundhimwithcontempt,andwhenthefamilyfortunesplummet,heisunabletoadapt.He becomestrappedinthemagnificentwealthyheritagethatsupportedhim, existingonlyasarelicofachangingAmerica.ThiswouldbeWelles’slast Americanhistoricalfilmandwas,inmanyways,hismostbrilliant.Here, hebrokecompletelywiththestylisticconventionsandrhetoricoftraditionalhistoricalcinemaandinvestedthenarrativewithapurelyimagistic
Conclusion 337
senseofAmericanhistory.Hishistoricalcinemacompletelyabandoned thenotionoftheprintedandprojectedwordandthefilmindustry’savid exploration of historical topics, inquiry, and narrative. The Ambersons werefiction,operatingfarfromanymarkersofconventionalhistory.Ironically,astheAmbersonsignorednationaleventsandmovedapartfromthe restofthecommunity,WellesalsodisassociatedhisworkfromthehistoricaltraditionofCitizenKane.BoththeAmbersonsandWellessufferedin theirdisregardforconvention.Midwaythroughpostproduction,Schaefer wasreplacedwithCharlesKoerner,andthestudio,appalledbythecomplexstoryandpreviewaudiences’baffledreactions,orderedRobertWise tocutthefilmtoapalatablelength.Byreducingittounderanhourand ahalf,TheMagnificentAmbersonscouldfitonadoublebill.Hollywood criticspointedoutthemanyunnecessary“personalbows”Wellestookin hisnarrationoftheprologueandcreditsandrelishednamingthefilmthe year’sbox-officedisaster.83RKOreleasedWellesfromhiscontract. By1942,industrial,financial,andpoliticalcircumstanceshadseriouslyaffectedAmericanhistoricalfilmmaking.AlthoughYankeeDoodle Dandy and Pride of the Yankees were critically and financially successful,contemporaneouscriticalresponsesrevealthattheywerelesspopular ashistoricalfilmsthanaswartimepropagandaandbaseballdrama.Far moretypicalwasthecriticalandpopularresponsetoWarnerBrothers’ biographyofboxerJamesCorbett,GentlemanJim(1942).Thefilmdid lukewarmboxoffice,butthecriticswerecontemptuous.EventheHollywoodperiodicals,whichhadbeenconsistentlyappreciativeandincreasinglytolerantovertheyears,condemnedthestudio’shistoricaleffortwith disgust.AccordingtoVariety,thefilmwas“sofarremovedfromfactthat it’sludicrous,”andthescreenplayhadtakenit“outofthebiographical classandintofantasy.”84JustasseriousforthiscriticwasWarnerBrothers’ failuretocapitalizeonthehistoryofearlyfilmmaking;afterall,Corbett hadbeenthefirstboxingfilmstar,appearinginseveralfilmsfromthelate 1890stotheearlyyearsofthetwentiethcentury.Yetthefilmendedin 1892,aftertheSullivan-Corbettfightandbeforetheadventoffilmmaking.WarnerBrothersignoredtheconnectionbetweenCorbettin1898 and1942and,insodoing,forfeitedtheonehistoricalaspectthatwould haveredeemedtheblatantbiographicalinaccuracies.Havingwitnessed theachievementsofhistoricalcinemaforoveradecade,by1942,Variety hadlostpatience. Althoughseveralyearsearlier,theGildedAgehadbeeninstrumental inpopularizingthehistoricalcycle,theresponsetoGentlemanJimand TheMagnificentAmbersonsindicatedthewaningtasteforAmericanhis-
338 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
tory.RKOhadfirstpurchasedtherightstoAmbersonsin1932,andeven Warner Brothers’ writer Julien Josephson had attempted a treatment.85 Butby1942,Welles’schallengingmeditationsontheAmericanpastwere “distinctlynotattunedtothetimes.”86TheSecondWorldWarvirtually endedthestudio’sinterestinthecycle.Contemporarywarfilmswerefar morepopularandapplicable,andwithforeignmarketsgoneorcrippled, HollywoodsimplycouldnotaffordtheexpenseofmajorhistoricalproductionslikeCimarron,SanFrancisco,InOldChicago,andGonewith theWind.87ButAmericanhistoricalcinema’sdeclinewasnotdetermined solely by Hollywood’s finances. Beginning with Cimarron, filmmakers hadtakenchanceswhenmakinghistoricalfilms,whetherduetocontroversialsubjectmatterornewapproachestoaperiodoraperson.Without discounting the historical innovations, censorship increasingly took the edgeoffhistoryinthecinema.LandofLiberty’s1939–1941production andreleasewerenotaccidental.AlthoughZanuckandSelznickpersisted (Wilson,1944;TheLateGeorgeApley,1947;DuelintheSun,1947;PortraitofJennie,1948),afteryearsoffightingcensorsandspendingmoney on research, it was far easier to revert to formulas and sound-stage war dramas. The critics, the original supporters of the cycle, had grown restless andevenhostileby1940.88AlthoughitiseasytoargueAmericanhistorical cinema reached its artistic and popular peak in the 1939 and 1940 seasons,thesamegoldenagealsokilledthepossibilityforimmediatefutureproduction.Americanhistoricalfilmproductionplummeted;only MGMandParamountseemedtohavethemoneytospendonlavishperiodpiecessuchasTheHarveyGirls(1945),MagnificentDoll(1946),and ThePerilsofPauline(1947).However,thislaterworkwasvastlydifferent fromearlysound-eracinemaandconsistedofperiodmusicalsandbiographiesofshowpeople(ShineOn,HarvestMoon,1943;TheJolsonStory, 1946; Mother Wore Tights, 1947; Words and Music, 1948; Jolson Sings Again,1949).Therewaslittlepreproductionresearch,screenwritershad lesscontrolovercontent,therewerefewertextinsertsandcontrastsbetweenvisualandtextualformsofhistory,andcriticsnevermentionedthe filmmakers’treatmentofhistory.Theageoftheproducerandhisscreenwriters was over, and the age of director auteurs had begun. As Variety noted,“Anera...haspassed....Thingsjustaren’twhattheyusedtobe forthosemembersofthecinema-scribblingfraternity.”89 Butin1941,whileSergeantYorkandLandofLibertytrumpetedthe virtuesofAmericanhistoryintheatersandCitizenKanedisruptedthem, andYankeeDoodleDandyandPrideoftheYankeeswerestillinthefu-
Conclusion 339
ture,Hollywood’sproductionofAmericanhistoryseemedself-possessed andsecure.ButnothingwassacredtoBillyWilderandCharlesBrackett, and that year, the screenwriting duo managed to both manipulate the iconographyofthehistoricalfilmandlampoonthestodginessofprofessionalhistoriansandtheentrenchedpowerofHollywood’sworksofhistory.BallofFire,theirscriptforSamGoldwyn,describedathinktankof dodderingprofessorsdisorientedbythearrivalofanightclubsinger,SugarpussO’Shea(BarbaraStanwyck).WilderandBrackettbeganthenarrativewithatraditionaltextforewordthatdescribedallthatthesevenwise menknewabout,andthen“theonethingaboutwhichtheyknewvery little”—sex.Ifthescreenwriterswereimplyingthathistoricalfilmmaking needed a boost, the academics got it. Sugarpuss teaches the bumbling geriatricstocongaandtheyoungerEnglishprofessorBertramPotts(Gary Cooper)aboutslangandhistory.“There’salotofwordswehaven’tcoveredyet,”shepointsout.“Forinstance,doyouknowwhatthismeans:‘I’ll getyouontheAmeche’?...TheAmecheisthetelephone,onaccountof heinventedit.”WhenPottsattemptstodisagree,shecutshimoff,“Like youknow,inthemovies.”Historiansandacademicsmightexpostulatein vain, but Carl Becker realized long ago that popular history, regardless ofwhetheritwasmoreaccurate,accessible,orcontroversialthanprofessionalhistory,hadthepublic’sattention. Zanuck must have appreciated the irony of Wilder and Brackett’s quip.AtthetimeofTheStoryofAlexanderGrahamBell,hehadbeen Hollywood’s biggest producer of American historical films. But in Zanuck’spushforprestigeandhispatronageoforiginalscreenplaysaspotentialworksoffilmhistoriography,hehadstruggledtogetaroundthe Americanpublic’sstumblingintellect:SilverDollar,asheremarkedto JohnHustonin1934,hadaimedtoohigh;YoungMr.Lincolnwasaboxofficefailure;evenAlexanderGrahamBellhadbeenadisappointment. YetwhenTheLittlestRebelwastakingshapeina1936storyconference, hehadwarnedanoverimaginativescreenwriternottoconstructAbraham Lincoln’s meeting with little Virgie (Shirley Temple) as his inspiration fortheGettysburgAddress,orthepublic“willthrowrocksatus.”Would Sugarpuss,thehipsinger–gangster’smoll,likeSusanAlexander,another “cross-section of the American public,” have known the difference or cared?OrwastheBell-AmechedividebetweenhistoryandHollywood’s worksofhistorynowmootafteradozenyearsofheavyproductions?The answer was as disturbing and invigorating as Sugarpuss O’Shea’s introductiontotheTottenFoundationhousehold.Zanuckandhiscolleagues’ filmhistoriographyhadsupplantedtraditionaltomes;Sugarpussandthe
340 ReconstructingAmericanHistoricalCinema
public’s fixation on the star was simply one of the effects that Bertram Pottshadtogetusedtoandintegrateintohisnewencyclopedia. Hollywoodfilmmakershadhelpedcreateapowerfulhistoricallegacy. Foroveradecade,theyprovedthatfilmscouldarguecomplexhistorical perspectives and question the formulas of traditional American history andbiography.Somebravedcontroversy,andothersknuckledunderthe demandsofcensorship.Someappropriatedthestructuresofconventional historiography,andothersupendedthem.Hollywood’sfilmicwritingof American history was both DeMillean cavalcade and historical hybrid. AbrahamLincolnandAlCaponewerethesubjectsofmajorbiographies, andthetransformationofhistoricalscholarshipfollowingtheFirstWorld Wargavenewmeaningtothetermforgottenmen.Filmmakersconfronted themoderndialecticbetweenpopularbiographyandthedeclineofthe traditionalAmericanhero.Inhigh-profileadaptationsofAmericanfiction fromCimarrontoRamonatoGonewiththeWind,womenemergednot onlyaspopularhistoriansbutalsoasactivehistoricalprotagonists.Race, miscegenation,disunion,totalwar—womenbegantotellthesepowerful counterhistoriesonavastpublicscale.TheirvoicesreanimatedAmerican historyfromSherman’smarchthroughtheGreatWarandthedeclineof silent Hollywood—the narratives and lost careers of American women fromElizaFrancesAndrewstoIreneCastleandClaraBowwerescripted withinthehistoryofmodernAmerica. Perhaps the cycle could not last beyond America’s decade of isolation and self-reflection. American involvement in the Second World War forcedHollywoodproductionandhistoricalthoughtbeyondthebordersof America. And despite contemporary Hollywood’s occasional high-profile foraysintoAmericanhistory(Glory,1989;MalcolmX,1992;SavingPrivate Ryan, 1998), the box-office future of these films has become even moretenuousinthefaceofaglobalizedfilmmarket.Howcanuniquely Americantalesappealtoaglobalmarket?Between1931and1941,Americancinemapushedthebordersoftraditionalhistoricaldiscourseeven asitredefinedthestructuresoffilmnarration.Withanationalcinema dependentonadeeplycomplex,conflicted,butculturallyspecificseries ofnarratives,itwasnowonderthat,whenconfrontedwithnewinternationalpressures,itcollapsed—likeCharlesFosterKane’sDeclarationof Principles—inthefaceofAmericanexpansion.
AppendixA
HistoricalFilmsbyYear,1913–1950 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921
TheBattleofGettysburg (Ince) IntheDaysofthe ThunderingHerd(Selig) TheLittlestRebel(Photoplay Productions) BarbaraFrietchie(Metro) TheBirthofaNation (Epoch) TheCrisis(SeligPolyscope) HeartofMaryland(Metro) TheWarrensofVirginia (LaskyFeaturePlay Company/Paramount) DavyCrockett(Paramount) BetsyRoss(World) TheConqueror(Fox) TheLittleYank(FineArts) TheManwithoutaCountry (Thanhouser) AMormonMaid (Friedman) TheSpiritof’76 (Continental) LittleWomen(WilliamA. Brady) TheCopperhead(Famous Players–Lasky) TheLastoftheMohicans (Tourneur/Associated Producers) TheHeartofMaryland (Vitagraph)
1922 1923 1924 341
TheHighestLaw(Selznick InternationalPictures) JesseJamesastheOutlaw (MescoPictures) JesseJamesundertheBlack Flag(MescoPictures) ACaliforniaRomance(Fox) Cardigan(Messmore Kendall) TheHeartofLincoln(Anchor FilmDistributors) TheCourtshipofMiles Standish(Associated Exhibitors) TheCoveredWagon (Paramount) Hollywood(Paramount) Jamestown(Pathe) LittleOldNewYork (Cosmopolitan/MGM) America(UnitedArtists) BarbaraFrietchie(Regal) Californiain’49(Arrow) TheDramaticLifeof AbrahamLincoln (Rockett) TheIronHorse(Fox) JaniceMeredith (Cosmopolitan/MGM) Secrets(Schenck/Associated FirstNational) SoBig(FirstNational) TheWarrensofVirginia(Fox)
342 AppendixA
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929
TheBigParade(MGM) TheManwithoutaCountry (Fox) TheScarletWest(First National) Tumbleweeds(WilliamS. Hart/UnitedArtists) TheVanishingAmerican (FamousPlayers–Lasky/ Paramount) AcrossthePacific(Warner Brothers) TheFlamingFrontier (Universal) HandsUp!(Paramount) TheLastFrontier (Metropolitan) OldIronsides(Paramount) ThePonyExpress(Famous Players–Lasky/Paramount) TheScarletLetter(MGM) WarPaint(MGM) California(MGM) TheFrontiersman(MGM) HeartofMaryland(Warner Brothers) JesseJames(Paramount) TheRoughRiders (Paramount) UncleTom’sCabin (Universal) Wings(Paramount) WinnersoftheWilderness (MGM) Court-marital(Columbia) KitCarson(Paramount) Ramona(UnitedArtists) ShopwornAngel (Paramount) ShowPeople(MGM) Wyoming(MGM) TheCaliforniaMail(Warner Brothers) Evangeline(UnitedArtists) TheGoldDiggersofBroadway (WarnerBrothers) InOldArizona(Fox)
1930 1931
TheInvaders(Big Productions) Morgan’sLastRaid(MGM) Redskin(Paramount) ShowBoat(Universal) TheVirginian(Paramount) AbrahamLincoln(United Artists) TheBigTrail(Fox) BillytheKid(MGM) Dixiana(RKO) DoorwaytoHell(Warner Brothers) TheFloradoraGirl(MGM) TheGirloftheGoldenWest (WarnerBrothers) MobyDick(Warner Brothers) OnlytheBrave(Paramount) TheRoyalFamilyof Broadway(Paramount) TheSpoilers(Paramount) TheTexan(Paramount) Tol’ableDavid(Columbia) TomSawyer(Paramount) AlexanderHamilton(Warner Brothers) Cimarron(RKO) TheConqueringHorde (Paramount) EastLynne(Fox) FightingCaravans (Paramount) TheFingerPoints(Warner Brothers) TheGreatMeadow(MGM) HuckleberryFinn (Paramount) TheLash(WarnerBrothers) LittleCaesar(Warner Brothers) TheMiracleWoman (Columbia) ThePublicEnemy(Warner Brothers) SecretService(RKO) TheSecretSix(MGM)
HistoricalFilmsbyYear 343
1932 1933
CallHerSavage(Fox) TheConquerors(RKO) DestryRidesAgain (Universal) IAmaFugitivefromaChain Gang(WarnerBrothers) LawandOrder(Universal) TheMatchKing(Warner Brothers) TheMouthpiece(Warner Brothers) MovieCrazy(Paramount) Scarface(Caddo) SilverDollar(Warner Brothers) SoBig(WarnerBrothers) ThreeonaMatch(Warner Brothers) TheWetParade(MGM) WhatPriceHollywood? (RKO) AnnVickers(RKO) Bombshell(MGM) BroadwaytoHollywood (MGM) TheChief(MGM) EverinMyHeart(Warner Brothers) FriscoJenny(Warner Brothers) GoldDiggersof1933 (WarnerBrothers) HeroesforSale(Columbia) ILovedaWoman(Warner Brothers) JennieGerhardt(Paramount) LittleWomen(RKO) TheManWhoDared(Fox) MorningGlory(RKO) OneSundayAfternoon (Paramount) OnlyYesterday(Universal) ThePowerandtheGlory (MGM) Secrets(UnitedArtists) SheDoneHimWrong (Paramount)
1934 1935
TheSilverCord(RKO) SongoftheEagle (Paramount) Sweepings(MGM) TheWorldChanges(Warner Brothers) TheAgeofInnocence(RKO) BelleoftheNineties (Paramount) Beloved(Universal) TheBowery(Twentieth Century) DavidHarum(Fox) FrontierMarshal(Fox) JudgePriest(Fox) ManhattanMelodrama (MGM) TheMightyBarnum (TwentiethCentury) Mrs.WiggsoftheCabbage Patch(Paramount) NowI’llTell(Twentieth Century) Operator13(MGM) ThePursuitofHappiness (MGM) VivaVilla!(MGM) TheWorldMovesOn(Fox) YouCan’tBuyEverything (MGM) Ah,Wilderness(MGM) AliceAdams(RKO) AnnieOakley(RKO) TheArizonian(RKO) TheBarbaryCoast (Paramount) TheCountyChairman (TwentiethCentury–Fox) DiamondJim(Universal) Dr.Socrates(Warner Brothers) TheFarmerTakesaWife (TwentiethCentury–Fox) TheFriscoKid(Warner Brothers) InOldKentucky(Twentieth Century–Fox)
344 AppendixA
1936
TheLittleColonel (TwentiethCentury–Fox) TheLittlestRebel(Twentieth Century–Fox) Mississippi(Paramount) NaughtyMarietta(MGM) Rendezvous(MGM) RugglesofRedGap (Paramount) SoRedtheRose(Paramount) SteamboatRoundtheBend (TwentiethCentury–Fox) SweetAdeline(Warner Brothers) WayDownEast(Twentieth Century–Fox) WestofthePecos(RKO) BulletsorBallets(Warner Brothers) CaptainJanuary(Twentieth Century–Fox) ComeandGetIt(United Artists) TheCountryDoctor (TwentiethCentury–Fox) TheGentlemanfrom Louisiana(Republic) GoWest,YoungMan (Paramount) TheGorgeousHussy (MGM) TheGreatZiegfeld(MGM) HeartsDivided(MGM) HeartsinBondage (Republic) HollywoodBoulevard (Paramount) KlondikeAnnie(Paramount) TheLastoftheMohicans (UnitedArtists) AMessagetoGarcia (TwentiethCentury–Fox) ThePlainsman(Paramount) ThePrisonerofSharkIsland (TwentiethCentury–Fox) Ramona(Twentieth Century–Fox)
1937 1938
RobinHoodofElDorado (TwentiethCentury–Fox) SanFrancisco(MGM) ShowBoat(Universal) SoulsatSea(Paramount) Sutter’sGold(Universal) TexasRangers(Paramount) TheCalifornian(Twentieth Century–Fox) CaptainsCourageous (MGM) High,Wide,andHandsome (RKO) MaidofSalem(Paramount) MakeWayforTomorrow (MGM) MarkedWoman(Warner Brothers) Maytime(MGM) SlaveShip(Twentieth Century–Fox) AStarIsBorn(Selznick InternationalPictures) ThatCertainWoman (WarnerBrothers) TheyGaveHimaGun (MGM) ThisIsMyAffair(Twentieth Century–Fox) TheToastofNewYork(RKO) WellsFargo(Paramount) TheAdventuresof TomSawyer(Selznick InternationalPictures) Alexander’sRagtimeBand (TwentiethCentury–Fox) BoysTown(MGM) TheBuccaneer(Paramount) EveryDay’saHoliday (Paramount) TheFrontiersman(Paramount) TheGirloftheGoldenWest (MGM) GoldIsWhereYouFindIt (WarnerBrothers) InOldChicago(Twentieth Century–Fox)
HistoricalFilmsbyYear 345
1939
Jezebel(WarnerBrothers) Kentucky(Twentieth Century–Fox) OfHumanHearts(MGM) ShopwornAngel(MGM) TheSisters(WarnerBrothers) TheTexans(Paramount) TheToyWife(MGM) YellowJack(MGM) AlleghenyUprising(RKO) DestryRidesAgain (Universal) DodgeCity(Warner Brothers) DrumsalongtheMohawk (TwentiethCentury–Fox) TheFlyingIrishman(RKO) FrontierMarshal(Twentieth Century–Fox) GonewiththeWind (SelznickInternational Pictures/MGM) HollywoodCavalcade (TwentiethCentury–Fox) JesseJames(Twentieth Century–Fox) LetFreedomRing(MGM) ManofConquest(Republic) Mr.SmithGoesto Washington(Columbia) TheOklahomaKid(Warner Brothers) TheOldMaid(Warner Brothers) TheRealGlory(United Artists) ReturnoftheCiscoKid (TwentiethCentury–Fox) TheRoaringTwenties (WarnerBrothers) TheRoseofWashington Square(Twentieth Century–Fox) Stagecoach(UnitedArtists) StandUpandFight(MGM) StanleyandLivingstone (TwentiethCentury–Fox)
1940
TheStarMaker(Paramount) TheStoryofAlexander GrahamBell(Twentieth Century–Fox) TheStoryofVernonandIrene Castle(RKO) SwaneeRiver(Twentieth Century–Fox) UnionPacific(Paramount) YoungMr.Lincoln (TwentiethCentury–Fox) AbeLincolninIllinois(RKO) Arizona(Columbia) BoomTown(MGM) BrighamYoung— Frontiersman(Twentieth Century–Fox) ChadHanna(Twentieth Century–Fox) TheDarkCommand (Republic) EdisontheMan(MGM) TheFighting69th(Warner Brothers) Geronimo(Paramount) TheGrapesofWrath (TwentiethCentury–Fox) TheGreatProfile(Twentieth Century–Fox) TheHowardsofVirginia (Columbia) Hudson’sBay(Twentieth Century–Fox) KitCarson(Reliance/United Artists) KittyFoyle(RKO) KnuteRockne,AllAmerican (WarnerBrothers) TheLadywithRedHair (WarnerBrothers) LillianRussell(Twentieth Century–Fox) LittleOldNewYork (TwentiethCentury–Fox) MyLittleChickadee (Paramount) NewMoon(MGM)
346 AppendixA
1941
NorthwestPassage(MGM) OurTown(UnitedArtists) TheQueenoftheMob (Paramount) TheReturnofFrankJames (TwentiethCentury–Fox) TheSantaFeTrail(Warner Brothers) TheyKnewWhatThey Wanted(RKO) TinPanAlley(Twentieth Century–Fox) VirginiaCity(Warner Brothers) TheWesterner(United Artists) WhentheDaltonsRode (UnitedArtists) YoungTomEdison(MGM) BackStreet(Universal) BelleStarr(Twentieth Century–Fox) BillytheKid(MGM) BlossomsintheDust(MGM) CitizenKane(RKO) GentlemanJim(Warner Brothers) HarmonofMichigan (Columbia) H.M.Pulham,Esq.(MGM) HonkyTonk(MGM) KingsRow(WarnerBrothers) TheLadyfromCheyenne (Universal) LandofLiberty(MPPDA/ MGM) TheLittleFoxes(Warner Brothers) OneFootinHeaven(MGM) TheReturnofDanielBoone (Columbia) SergeantYork(Warner Brothers) TheStrawberryBlonde (WarnerBrothers) TheyDiedwithTheirBoots On(WarnerBrothers)
1942 1943 1944
WesternUnion(Twentieth Century–Fox) TheGreatMan’sLady (Paramount) TheLovesofEdgarAllanPoe (TwentiethCentury–Fox) TheMagnificentAmbersons (RKO) PrideoftheYankees(RKO) ReaptheWildWind (Paramount) RoxieHart(Twentieth Century–Fox) TheSpoilers(Republic) TennesseeJohnson(MGM) TheVanishingVirginian (MGM) YankeeDoodleDandy (WarnerBrothers) Dixie(Paramount) HeavenCanWait(Twentieth Century–Fox) Hello,Frisco,Hello (TwentiethCentury–Fox) InOldOklahoma(Republic) IsEverybodyHappy? (Columbia) JackLondon(UnitedArtists) TheOutlaw(Hughes) TheAdventuresofMark Twain(WarnerBrothers) BuffaloBill(Twentieth Century–Fox) MeetMeinSt.Louis (MGM) Mr.Skeffington(Warner Brothers) Mrs.Parkington(MGM) RogerTouhy,Gangster (TwentiethCentury–Fox) ShineOn,HarvestMoon (WarnerBrothers) ShowBusiness(RKO) TheStoryofDr.Wassell (Paramount) Wilson(TwentiethCentury– Fox)
HistoricalFilmsbyYear 347
1945 1946 1947
CaptainEddie(Twentieth Century–Fox) Dakota(Republic) TheDollySisters(Twentieth Century–Fox) FlameoftheBarbaryCoast (Republic) TheHarveyGirls(MGM) IncendiaryBlonde (Paramount) RoughlySpeaking(Warner Brothers) SaratogaTrunk(Warner Brothers) TheStoryofG.I.Joe(United Artists) ATreeGrowsinBrooklyn (TwentiethCentury–Fox) TheDaltonsRideAgain (Universal) TheJolsonStory(Columbia) MagnificentDoll(Universal) MyDarlingClementine (TwentiethCentury–Fox) NightandDay(Warner Brothers) StrangeWoman(United Artists) TilltheCloudsRollBy (MGM) TwoYearsbeforetheMast (Paramount) TheVirginian(Paramount) DuelintheSun(Selznick InternationalPictures) TheFabulousDorseys (UnitedArtists) TheLateGeorgeApley (TwentiethCentury–Fox) LifewithFather(Warner Brothers) MotherWoreTights (TwentiethCentury–Fox) MyWildIrishRose(Warner Brothers) ThePerilsofPauline (Paramount)
1948 1949 1950
TheRomanceofRosyRidge (MGM) TheSeaofGrass(MGM) TheShockingMissPilgrim (TwentiethCentury–Fox) TheUnconquered (Paramount) TheBabeRuthStory(Allied Artists) FortApache(RKO) IRememberMama(RKO) Isn’tItRomantic(Paramount) PortraitofJennie(Selznick InternationalPictures) RedRiver(Monterey) StreetsofLaredo(Paramount) TapRoots(Universal) UpinCentralPark (Universal) WordsandMusic(MGM) TheYoungerBrothers (WarnerBrothers) TheGreatDanPatch(United Artists) IWasaMaleWarBride (Columbia) JolsonSingsAgain (Columbia) LittleWomen(MGM) LookfortheSilverLining (WarnerBrothers) Oh,YouBeautifulDoll (TwentiethCentury–Fox) TheSandsofIwoJima (Republic) TheStoryofSeabiscuit (WarnerBrothers) TheStrattonStory(MGM) TaskForce(WarnerBrothers) You’reMyEverything (TwentiethCentury–Fox) AllaboutEve(Twentieth Century–Fox) AnnieGetYourGun (MGM) BrokenArrow(Twentieth Century–Fox)
348 AppendixA
CheaperbytheDozen (TwentiethCentury–Fox) TheDaughterofRosie O’Grady(Warner Brothers) DavyCrockett,IndianScout (UnitedArtists) TheMagnificentYankee (MGM) SunsetBoulevard (Paramount) YoungManwithaHorn (WarnerBrothers)
AppendixB
HistoricalFilmsbyStudio,1928–1950 Caddo/Hughes Scarface(1932) TheOutlaw(1943) Columbia Court-martial(1928) Tol’ableDavid(1930) TheMiracleWoman(1931) HeroesforSale(1933) Mr.SmithGoestoWashington (1939) Arizona(1940) TheHowardsofVirginia(1940) HarmonofMichigan(1941) TheReturnofDanielBoone(1941) IsEverybodyHappy?(1943) TheJolsonStory(1946) IWasaMaleWarBride(1949) JolsonSingsAgain(1949) Fox InOldArizona(1929) TheBigTrail(1930) EastLynne(1931) CallHerSavage(1932) TheManWhoDared(1933) DavidHarum(1934) FrontierMarshal(1934) JudgePriest(1934) TheWorldMovesOn(1934) MGM ShowPeople(1928)
Wyoming(1928) Morgan’sLastRaid(1929) BillytheKid(1930) TheFloradoraGirl(1930) TheGreatMeadow(1931) TheSecretSix(1931) TheWetParade(1932) Bombshell(1933) BroadwaytoHollywood(1933) TheChief(1933) ThePowerandtheGlory(1933) Sweepings(1933) ManhattanMelodrama(1934) Operator13(1934) ThePursuitofHappiness(1934) VivaVilla!(1934) Ah,Wilderness(1935) NaughtyMarietta(1935) Rendezvous(1935) TheGorgeousHussy(1936) TheGreatZiegfeld(1936) HeartsDivided(1936) SanFrancisco(1936) CaptainsCourageous(1937) MakeWayforTomorrow(1937) TheyGaveHimaGun(1937) BoysTown(1938) TheGirloftheGoldenWest(1938) OfHumanHearts(1938) ShopwornAngel(1938) TheToyWife(1938) YellowJack(1938) LetFreedomRing(1939) 349
350 AppendixB
StandUpandFight(1939) BoomTown(1940) EdisontheMan(1940) NewMoon(1940) NorthwestPassage(1940) YoungTomEdison(1940) BillytheKid(1941) BlossomsintheDust(1941) H.M.Pulham,Esq.(1941) HonkyTonk(1941) OneFootinHeaven(1941) TennesseeJohnson(1942) TheVanishingVirginian(1942) MeetMeinSt.Louis(1944) Mrs.Parkington(1944) TheHarveyGirls(1945) TilltheCloudsRollBy(1946) TheRomanceofRosyRidge(1947) TheSeaofGrass(1947) WordsandMusic(1948) LittleWomen(1949) AnnieGetYourGun(1950) TheMagnificentYankee(1950) Paramount KitCarson(1928) ShopwornAngel(1928) Redskin(1929) TheVirginian(1929) OnlytheBrave(1930) TheRoyalFamilyofBroadway(1930) TheSpoilers(1930) TheTexan(1930) TomSawyer(1930) TheConqueringHorde(1931) FightingCaravans(1931) HuckleberryFinn(1931) MovieCrazy(1932) JennieGerhardt(1933) OneSundayAfternoon(1933) SheDoneHimWrong(1933) SongoftheEagle(1933) BelleoftheNineties(1934) Mrs.WiggsoftheCabbagePatch (1934) TheBarbaryCoast(1935) RugglesofRedGap(1935)
SoRedtheRose(1935) GoWest,YoungMan(1936) HollywoodBoulevard(1936) KlondikeAnnie(1936) ThePlainsman(1936) TheTexasRangers(1936) MaidofSalem(1937) SoulsatSea(1937) WellsFargo(1937) TheBuccaneer(1938) EveryDay’saHoliday(1938) TheFrontiersman(1938) TheTexans(1938) TheStarMaker(1939) UnionPacific(1939) Geronimo(1940) MyLittleChickadee(1940) TheQueenoftheMob(1940) TheGreatMan’sLady(1942) ReaptheWildWind(1942) Dixie(1943) TheStoryofDr.Wassell(1944) IncendiaryBlonde(1945) TwoYearsbeforetheMast(1946) TheVirginian(1946) ThePerilsofPauline(1947) TheUnconquered(1947) Isn’tItRomantic(1948) StreetsofLaredo(1948) SunsetBoulevard(1950) RKO Dixiana(1930) Cimarron(1931) SecretService(1931) TheConquerors(1932) WhatPriceHollywood?(1932) AnnVickers(1933) LittleWomen(1933) MorningGlory(1933) TheSilverCord(1933) AgeofInnocence(1934) AliceAdams(1935) AnnieOakley(1935) TheArizonian(1935) WestofthePecos(1935) High,Wide,andHandsome(1937)
HistoricalFilmsbyStudio 351
TheToastofNewYork(1937) AlleghenyUprising(1939) TheFlyingIrishman(1939) TheStoryofVernonandIreneCastle (1939) AbeLincolninIllinois(1940) KittyFoyle(1940) TheyKnewWhatTheyWanted(1940) CitizenKane(1941) TheGreatMan’sLady(1942) TheMagnificentAmbersons(1942) PrideoftheYankees(1942) ShowBusiness(1944) FortApache(1948) IRememberMama(1948) Republic TheGentlemanfromLouisiana(1936) HeartsinBondage(1936) ManofConquest(1939) TheDarkCommand(1940) TheSpoilers(1942) InOldOklahoma(1943) Dakota(1945) FlameoftheBarbaryCoast(1945) TheSandsofIwoJima(1949) SelznickInternationalPictures AStarIsBorn(1937) TheAdventuresofTomSawyer(1938) GonewiththeWind(1939) DuelintheSun(1947) PortraitofJennie(1948) TwentiethCentury TheBowery(1934) TheMightyBarnum(1934) NowI’llTell(1934) TwentiethCentury–Fox TheCountyChairman(1935) TheFarmerTakesaWife(1935) InOldKentucky(1935) TheLittleColonel(1935) TheLittlestRebel(1935) SteamboatRoundtheBend(1935) WayDownEast(1935)
CaptainJanuary(1936) TheCountryDoctor(1936) ThePrisonerofSharkIsland(1936) Ramona(1936) RobinHoodofElDorado(1936) TheCalifornian(1937) AMessagetoGarcia(1937) SlaveShip(1937) ThisIsMyAffair(1937) Alexander’sRagtimeBand(1938) InOldChicago(1938) Kentucky(1938) DrumsalongtheMohawk(1939) FrontierMarshal(1939) HollywoodCavalcade(1939) JesseJames(1939) ReturnoftheCiscoKid(1939) TheRoseofWashingtonSquare(1939) StanleyandLivingstone(1939) TheStoryofAlexanderGrahamBell (1939) SwaneeRiver(1939) YoungMr.Lincoln(1939) BrighamYoung—Frontiersman(1940) ChadHanna(1940) TheGrapesofWrath(1940) TheGreatProfile(1940) Hudson’sBay(1940) LillianRussell(1940) LittleOldNewYork(1940) TheReturnofFrankJames(1940) TinPanAlley(1940) BelleStarr(1941) WesternUnion(1941) TheLovesofEdgarAllanPoe(1942) RoxieHart(1942) HeavenCanWait(1943) Hello,Frisco,Hello(1943) BuffaloBill(1944) RogerTouhy,Gangster(1944) Wilson(1944) CaptainEddie(1945) TheDollySisters(1945) ATreeGrowsinBrooklyn(1945) MyDarlingClementine(1946) TheLateGeorgeApley(1947) MotherWoreTights(1947)
352 AppendixB
TheShockingMissPilgrim(1947) Oh,YouBeautifulDoll(1949) You’reMyEverything(1949) AllAboutEve(1950) BrokenArrow(1950) CheaperbytheDozen(1950) UnitedArtists Ramona(1928) Evangeline(1929) AbrahamLincoln(1930) Secrets(1933) ComeandGetIt(1936) TheLastoftheMohicans(1936) TheRealGlory(1939) Stagecoach(1939) KitCarson(1940) OurTown(1940) TheWesterner(1940) WhentheDaltonsRode(1940) JackLondon(1943) TheStoryofG.I.Joe(1945) StrangeWoman(1946) TheFabulousDorseys(1947) TheGreatDanPatch(1949) DavyCrockett,IndianScout(1950) Universal ShowBoat(1929) DestryRidesAgain(1932) LawandOrder(1932) OnlyYesterday(1933) Beloved(1934) DiamondJim(1935) ShowBoat(1936) Sutter’sGold(1936) DestryRidesAgain(1939) TheLadyfromCheyenne(1941) TheDaltonsRideAgain(1946) MagnificentDoll(1946) TapRoots(1948) UpinCentralPark(1948) WarnerBrothers TheCaliforniaMail(1929) TheGoldDiggersofBroadway(1929) DoorwaytoHell(1930)
TheGirloftheGoldenWest(1930) MobyDick(1930) AlexanderHamilton(1931) TheFingerPoints(1931) TheLash(1931) LittleCaesar(1931) ThePublicEnemy(1931) IAmaFugitivefromaChainGang (1932) TheMatchKing(1932) TheMouthpiece(1932) SilverDollar(1932) SoBig(1932) ThreeonaMatch(1932) EverinMyHeart(1933) FriscoJenny(1933) ILovedaWoman(1933) TheWorldChanges(1933) Dr.Socrates(1935) TheFriscoKid(1935) SweetAdeline(1935) BulletsorBallets(1936) MarkedWoman(1937) ThatCertainWoman(1937) GoldIsWhereYouFindIt(1938) Jezebel(1938) TheSisters(1938) DodgeCity(1939) TheOklahomaKid(1939) TheOldMaid(1939) TheRoaringTwenties(1939) TheFighting69th(1940) TheLadywithRedHair(1940) TheSantaFeTrail(1940) VirginiaCity(1940) GentlemanJim(1941) KingsRow(1941) TheLittleFoxes(1941) SergeantYork(1941) TheStrawberryBlonde(1941) TheyDiedwithTheirBootsOn(1941) YankeeDoodleDandy(1942) ShineOn,HarvestMoon(1944) TheAdventuresofMarkTwain(1944) Mr.Skeffington(1944) RoughlySpeaking(1945) SaratogaTrunk(1945)
HistoricalFilmsbyStudio 353
NightandDay(1946) LifewithFather(1947) MyWildIrishRose(1947) TheYoungerBrothers(1948) LookfortheSilverLining(1949) TheStoryofSeabiscuit(1949) TaskForce(1949) TheDaughterofRosieO’Grady (1950) YoungManwithaHorn(1950)
This page intentionally left blank
AppendixC
AmericanHistoricalFilmsThatWon MajorAcademyAwards,1927–1950 Note:Farfewerawardcategoriesexistedfrom1927to1936,anduntil1940,far fewerfilmswerenominatedpercategory.AlthoughAmerican“historical”films wonsomeawardsinthe1940s,theseweremostlynominationsformusicalscore, song, and cinematography. The bulk of the major picture, directing, writing, acting,andeditingawardswerewonfrom1931to1942. 1927–1928(Silent) Wings:BestPictureandEngineering(Special)Effects 1928–1929 InOldArizona:BestActor;nominatedBestPicture,Director,Writing,and Cinematography
1929–1930 Noawards.
1930–1931 Cimarron:BestPicture,Screenplay,andArtDirection;nominatedBestActor, Actress,Director,andCinematography LittleCaesar:nominatedBestAdaptedStory ThePublicEnemy:nominatedBestOriginalStory TheRoyalFamilyofBroadway:nominatedBestActor 1931–1932 WhatPriceHollywood?:nominatedBestOriginalStory 1932–1933 TheGoldDiggersof1933:nominatedBestSoundRecording IAmaFugitivefromaChainGang:nominatedBestPicture,Actor,andSound Recording 355
356 AppendixC
LittleWomen:nominatedBestPicture,Director,andAdaptedStory MorningGlory:BestActress SheDoneHimWrong:nominatedBestPicture 1934 ManhattanMelodrama:BestOriginalStory Operator13:nominatedBestCinematography VivaVilla!:BestAssistantDirector;nominatedBestPicture,AdaptedStory,and SoundRecording 1935 AliceAdams:nominatedBestPictureandActress TheBarbaryCoast:nominatedBestCinematography NaughtyMarietta:nominatedBestPictureandSoundRecording RugglesofRedGap:nominatedBestPicture 1936 ComeandGetIt:BestSupportingActor;nominatedBestEditing TheGorgeousHussy:nominatedBestSupportingActressand Cinematography TheGreatZiegfeld:BestPictureandActress;nominatedBestDirector,Original Story,SetDesigns,andEditing TheLastoftheMohicans:nominatedBestAssistantDirector SanFrancisco:BestSoundRecording;nominatedBestPicture,Actor,Director, OriginalStory,andAssistantDirector TheTexasRangers:nominatedBestSoundRecording 1937 CaptainsCourageous:BestActor;nominatedBestScreenplayandEditing EveryDay’saHoliday:nominatedBestSetDesign InOldChicago:BestSupportingActressandAssistantDirector;nominated BestPicture,OriginalStory,SoundRecording,andScore Maytime:nominatedBestSoundRecordingandScore SoulsatSea:nominatedBestSetDesign,AssistantDirector,andScore AStarIsBorn:BestOriginalStory;nominatedBestPicture,Actor,Actress, Director,andScreenplay WellsFargo:nominatedBestSoundRecording 1938 TheAdventuresofTomSawyer:nominatedBestSetDesign Alexander’sRagtimeBand:BestScore;nominatedBestPicture,OriginalStory, SetDesign,Song,andEditing BoysTown:BestActorandOriginalStory;nominatedBestPicture,Director, andScreenplay TheBuccaneer:nominatedBestCinematography Jezebel:BestActressandSupportingActress;nominatedBestPicture, Cinematography,andScore
FilmsThatWonMajorAcademyAwards 357
Kentucky:BestSupportingActor OfHumanHearts:nominatedBestSupportingActress 1939 DrumsalongtheMohawk:nominatedBestSupportingActressandColor Cinematography GonewiththeWind:BestPicture,Actress,SupportingActress,Director, Screenplay,SetDesign,Editing,andColorCinematography;nominated BestActor,SupportingActress,SoundRecording,OriginalScore,and SpecialEffects ManofConquest:nominatedBestSetDesign,SoundRecording,andOriginal Score Mr.SmithGoestoWashington:BestOriginalStory;nominatedBestPicture, Actor,SupportingActor(2),Director,Screenplay,SetDesign,Sound Recording,Score,andEditing Stagecoach:BestSupportingActorandScore;nominatedBestPicture, Director,Black-and-WhiteCinematography,andSetDesign SwaneeRiver:nominatedBestScore UnionPacific:nominatedBestSpecialEffects YoungMr.Lincoln:nominatedBestOriginalStory 1940 AbeLincolninIllinois,nominatedBestActorandBlack-and-White Cinematography Arizona:nominatedBestBlack-and-WhiteSetDesignandOriginalScore BoomTown:nominatedBestBlack-and-WhiteCinematographyandSpecial Effects DarkCommand:nominatedBestBlack-and-WhiteSetDesignandOriginal Score EdisontheMan:nominatedBestOriginalStory TheGrapesofWrath:BestDirectorandSupportingActress;nominatedBest Picture,Actor,Screenplay,andSoundRecording TheHowardsofVirginia:nominatedBestSoundRecordingandOriginal Score KittyFoyle:BestActress;nominatedBestPicture,Director,Screenplay,and SoundRecording LillianRussell:nominatedBestBlack-and-WhiteSetDesign NorthwestPassage:nominatedBestColorCinematography OurTown:nominatedBestPicture,Actress,Black-and-WhiteSetDesign, SoundRecording,Score,andOriginalScore TheyKnewWhatTheyWanted:nominatedBestSupportingActor TheWesterner:BestSupportingActor,nominatedBestOriginalStoryand Black-and-WhiteSetDesign 1941 BackStreet:nominatedBestDramaticScore BillytheKid:nominatedBestColorCinematography
358 AppendixC
BlossomsintheDust:BestColorSetDesign;nominatedBestPicture,Actress, andColorCinematography CitizenKane:BestScreenplay;nominatedBestPicture,Director,Actor, Black-and-WhiteCinematography,Black-and-WhiteSetDesign,Sound Recording,DramaticScore,andEditing TheLittleFoxes:nominatedBestPicture,Actress,SupportingActress(2), Director,Screenplay,Black-and-WhiteSetDesign,DramaticScore,and Editing OneFootinHeaven:nominatedBestPicture SergeantYork:BestActorandEditing;nominatedBestPicture,Supporting Actor,SupportingActress,Director,OriginalScreenplay,Black-and-White Cinematography,Black-and-WhiteSetDesign,SoundRecording,and DramaticScore TheStrawberryBlonde:nominatedBestMusicalScore 1942 KingsRow:nominatedBestPicture,Director,andBlack-and-White Cinematography TheMagnificentAmbersons:nominatedBestPicture,SupportingActress,Blackand-WhiteCinematography,andBlack-and-WhiteSetDesign PrideoftheYankees:BestEditing;nominatedBestPicture,Actress,Actor, OriginalStory,Screenplay,Black-and-WhiteCinematography,Black-andWhiteSetDesign,SoundRecording,DramaticScore,andSpecialEffects ReaptheWildWind:BestSpecialEffects;nominatedBestColor CinematographyandColorSetDesign YankeeDoodleDandy:BestActor,SoundRecording,andMusicalScore; nominatedBestPicture,SupportingActor,Director,OriginalStory,and Editing 1943 HeavenCanWait:nominatedBestPicture,Director,andColor Cinematography Hello,Frisco,Hello:BestSong;nominatedBestColorCinematography InOldOklahoma:nominatedBestSoundRecordingandDramaticScore 1944 TheAdventuresofMarkTwain:nominatedBestBlack-and-WhiteSetDesign, DramaticScore,andSpecialEffects JackLondon:nominatedBestDramaticScore MeetMeinSt.Louis:nominatedBestScreenplay,ColorCinematography, Song,andMusicalScore Mr.Skeffington:nominatedBestActressandActor Mrs.Parkington:nominatedBestActressandSupportingActress TheStoryofDr.Wassell:nominatedBestSpecialEffects Wilson:BestOriginalScreenplay,ColorCinematography,ColorSetDesign, Sound,andEditing;nominatedBestPicture,Actor,Director,Dramatic Score,andSpecialEffects
FilmsThatWonMajorAcademyAwards 359
1945 CaptainEddie:nominatedBestSpecialEffects FlameoftheBarbaryCoast:nominatedBestSoundRecordingandDramatic Score IncendiaryBlonde:nominatedBestMusicalScore TheStoryofG.I.Joe:nominatedBestSupportingActor,Screenplay,Song,and DramaticScore ATreeGrowsinBrooklyn:BestSupportingActor;nominatedBestScreenplay 1946 TheDollySisters:nominatedBestSong DuelintheSun:nominatedBestActress,SupportingActress,andColor Cinematography TheHarveyGirls:BestSong;nominatedBestMusicalScore TheJolsonStory:BestMusicalScore;nominatedBestActor,SupportingActor, andEditing SaratogaTrunk:nominatedBestSupportingActress 1947 LifewithFather:nominatedBestActor,ColorCinematography,ArtDirection, andDramaticScore MotherWoreTights:BestMusicalScore;nominatedBestColor CinematographyandSong MyWildIrishRose:nominatedBestMusicalScore Unconquered:nominatedBestSpecialEffects 1948 IRememberMama:nominatedBestActress,SupportingActress(2),Supporting Actor,andBlack-and-WhiteCinematography PortraitofJennie:BestSpecialEffects;nominatedBestBlack-and-White Cinematography RedRiver:BestOriginalStoryandEditing 1949 JolsonSingsAgain:nominatedBestStoryandScreenplay,Color Cinematography,andMusicalScore LittleWomen:nominatedBestColorArtDesignandColor Cinematography LookfortheSilverLining:nominatedBestMusicalScore TheSandsofIwoJima:nominatedBestActor,OriginalStory,SoundRecording, andEditing SheWoreaYellowRibbon:BestColorCinematography TheStrattonStory:BestOriginalStory 1950 AllaboutEve:BestPicture,SupportingActor,Director,Screenplay,Sound Recording,andBlack-and-WhiteCostumeDesign;nominatedBestActress
360 AppendixC
(2),SupportingActress,Black-and-WhiteCinematography,Black-andWhiteArtDirection,DramaticScore,andEditing AnnieGetYourGun:BestMusicalScore;nominatedBestColor Cinematography,Editing,andColorArtDirection BrokenArrow:nominatedBestSupportingActor,Screenplay,andColor Cinematography TheMagnificentYankee:nominatedBestActorandCostumeDesign SunsetBoulevard:BestStoryandScreenplay,DramaticScore,andBlack-andWhiteArtDirection;nominatedBestPicture,Actress,Actor,Supporting Actor,SupportingActress,Director,Black-and-WhiteCinematography, andEditing
AppendixD
AmericanHistoricalFilmstoBeNamed theNationalBoardofReview’sand FilmDaily’sBestFilmsoftheYear Notethesteadywaningofcriticalandbox-officeaccoladesforAmericanhistorical films after 1942. Beginning in 1942 with In Which We Serve, more and more British films dominated the top-ten lists. Italian filmmakers Visconti, de Sica, andRosselliniwerealsoprominentbeginningin1944. 1927 NoAmericanhistoricalfilmsmadethelist.FilmDaily’stopfivewereBeauGeste, TheBigParade,WhatPriceGlory,TheWayofAllFlesh,andBenHur. 1928 NoAmericanhistoricalfilmsmadethelist.FilmDaily’stoptenwereThePatriot, SorrellandSon,TheLastCommand,FourSons,StreetAngel,TheCircus,Sunrise, TheCrowd,KingofKings,andSadieThompson. 1929 Of Film Daily’s top ten, only Gold Diggers of Broadway (entertainment past) and In Old Arizona (first talking western) made the list, at numbers 5 and 7, respectively. Show Boat and The Virginian make the “Roll of Honor.” The other top ten were Disraeli, Broadway Melody, Madame X, Rio Rita, Bulldog Drummond,Cock-eyedWorld,TheLastofMrs.Cheyney,andHallelujah! 1930 AllQuietontheWesternFrontwasnamedthetopfilmbybothFilmDailyand the National Board of Review poll. Abraham Lincoln was number 2 on Film Daily’slist.TheonlyotherAmericanperiodfilmtomakeeitherlistwasTol’able David(NationalBoardofReview). 1931 CimarronbecamethefirstAmericanhistoricalfilmtowintophonorsfromboth FilmDailyandtheNationalBoardofReview.Thelatter’s“SupplementaryTen” 361
362 AppendixD
includedThePublicEnemyandLittleCaesar.FilmDaily’slistmentionedLittle Caesar(11),RoyalFamilyofBroadway(14),AlexanderHamilton(16),ThePublic Enemy(18),TomSawyer(30),HuckleberryFinn(38),andMiracleWoman(51). 1932 GretaGarbo’sfilmsledthechoicesofbothFilmDaily(GrandHotel)andthe NationalBoardofReview(AsYouDesireMe),butScarfacemadethetoptenof bothlists(numbers10and7,respectively).TheNationalBoardofReviewalso listedIAmaFugitivefromaChainGangatnumber4(FilmDailyincludedthe film in its 1933 tally). Movie Crazy (26), What Price Hollywood? (39), So Big (42),andMouthpiece(49)alsomadetheFilmDailylist. 1933 TheBritishhistoricaldramaCavalcadeledFilmDailyandcameinatnumber 2 for the National Board of Review. American period films She Done Him Wrong(numbers7and6,respectively)andLittleWomen(3)madethelists. TheBowery(18),ThePowerandtheGlory(21),TheGoldDiggersof1933(28), SilverDollar(30),andMorningGlory(14)wonhonorablementionfromFilm Daily. 1934 VivaVilla!madebothtop-tenlists:number10fortheNationalBoardofReview, andnumber7forFilmDaily.AlsoonFilmDaily’slistwereLittleWomen,David Harum,JudgePriest,andOperator13. 1935 Film Daily included the following films: Ruggles of Red Gap (6), Naughty Marietta(4),AliceAdams(11),DiamondJim(27),SteamboatRoundtheBend (30),TheBarbaryCoast(35),TheLittleColonel(36),TheFarmerTakesaWife (37),andMightyBarnum(46).TheNationalBoardofReviewlistedAliceAdams (1)andRugglesofRedGap(4). 1936 Film Daily listed The Great Ziegfeld (3), San Francisco (4), Ah, Wilderness (honorablemention;number12in1935),ThePetrifiedForest(18),ShowBoat (20),TheGorgeousHussy(27),ThePrisonerofSharkIsland(39),Ramona(46), and The Last of the Mohicans (54). The National Board of Review listed The PrisonerofSharkIsland(9). 1937 Film Daily’s choices were Captains Courageous (3), A Star Is Born (5), The Plainsman(honorablemention;number20in1936),Maytime(15),Comeand Get It (46), Maid of Salem (47), and Slave Ship (49). The National Board of ReviewchoseCaptainsCourageous(8)andAStarIsBorn(9). 1938 FilmDailylistedAlexander’sRagtimeBand(3),BoysTown(4),andInOldChicago
FilmstobeNamedBestFilmsoftheYear 363
(6) and gave honorable mention to Jezebel (13), Wells Fargo (15), Of Human Hearts(20),TheBuccaneer(21),andTheSisters(26).FortheNationalBoard ofReview,OfHumanHearts(3)andJezebel(4)madethelist,withAlexander’s RagtimeBandandInOldChicagolistedastopmoneymakers. 1939 FilmDaily’slistincludedStanleyandLivingstone(9)andTheOldMaid(10); theNationalBoardofReviewlistedStagecoach(3),YoungMr.Lincoln(5),Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (8), and The Roaring Twenties (9). Film Daily also gave honorable mention to Stagecoach (11), Young Mr. Lincoln (12), Union Pacific(15),JesseJames(21),TheStoryofVernonandIreneCastle(22),TheStory ofAlexanderGrahamBell(25),DodgeCity(32),andHollywoodCavalcade(34), alongwithTheRoaringTwenties,RealGlory,andManofConquest. 1940 Film Daily chose The Grapes of Wrath (2), Abe Lincoln in Illinois (6), and NorthwestPassage(8).TheNationalBoardofReviewchoseTheGrapesofWrath (1)andGonewiththeWind(9)andalsomentionedEdisontheMan(13),Knute Rockne,AllAmerican(14),YoungTomEdison(20),TheHowardsofVirginia(21), DestryRidesAgain(23),TheFighting69th(27),DrumsalongtheMohawk(30), BrighamYoung(34),TheWesterner(35),LillianRussell(37),andSwaneeRiver (53).Thisyear,theNationalBoardofReviewbegantoincludethreecategories basedonartisticmeritandpopularappeal. 1941 The National Board of Review cited Citizen Kane (1) for artistic merit and Sergeant York for popularity with the Motion Pictures Council. One Foot in HeavenandBlossomsintheDustalsomadethetop-tenpopularitypolls.Gone withtheWindstillheadedFilmDaily’slistasthebestfilmincirculationin1941, followedbySergeantYork(2),ThePhiladelphiaStory(3),CitizenKane(4),and KittyFoyle(7).TheWesterner(39),WesternUnion(43),StrawberryBlonde(44), ChadHanna(45),Hudson’sBay(48),BelleStarr(52),andArizona(58)were alsomentioned. 1942 InWhichWeServeandMrs.MinivertoppedtheNationalBoardofReviewlist, whichalsoincludedPrideoftheYankeesandYankeeDoodleDandy.FilmDaily listedKingsRow(3),PrideoftheYankees(5),OneFootinHeaven(7),Reapthe WildWind(12),TheMagnificentAmbersons(24),andTheGreatMan’sLady (43). 1943 OnlyYankeeDoodleDandy(3)wasinFilmDaily’stopten. 1944 FilmDailylistedTheAdventuresofMarkTwain(20)andBuffaloBill(52).The NationalBoardofReviewcitedWilson(6)andMeetMeinSt.Louis(7).
364 AppendixD
1945 TheNationalBoardofReviewchoseTheStoryofG.I.Joe(4)andATreeGrows inBrooklyn(7).FilmDailylistedWilson(1),ATreeGrowsinBrooklyn(2),The StoryofG.I.Joe(7),MeetMeinSt.Louis(13),TheDollySisters(41),Incendiary Blonde(50),andRoughlySpeaking(53). 1946 FilmDaily’slistincludedSaratogaTrunk(6),TheJolsonStory(19),HarveyGirls (29),MyDarlingClementine(47),andTheOutlaw(55).TheNationalBoardof Review’sbestartisticfilmswereHenryV(GreatBritain)andOpenCity(Italy). Clementine(7)andSaratogaTrunk(10)madethemost-popularlist. 1947 FilmDailylistedTheJolsonStory(2),DuelintheSun(18),MotherWoreTights (21),SeaofGrass(25),andThePerilsofPauline(37).
AppendixE AmericanHistoricalFilmOutputbyMajorStudios
365
366 AppendixE
TotalNumberofAmericanHistoricalFilms,1928–1950
Notes
Notes
Introduction TheepigraphtothissectionisfromD.W.Griffith,TheRiseandFallofFree SpeechinAmerica[pamphlet](LosAngeles,1916),8. 1. Ince’s feature was arguably the first major American historical film (five reels).America’sonlycompetitorinhistoricalfilms,Italy,tendedtoproduceRomanepicssuchasGuazonni’sQuoVadis?(1913)andPastrone’sCabiria(1914). 2.SeeFredSilva,ed.,FocusonTheBirthofaNation(EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall,1971),62–105. 3.Crisis,May–June1915,40–42,87–88;Griffithdidcut558feetofantiblack,pro-Klanfootagefromtheoriginalprint(Silva,Focus,4);editorial,“CapitalizingRaceHatred,”NewYorkGlobe,6April1915;FrancisHackett,“Brotherly Love,”NewRepublic,20March1915,185. 4.Hackett,“BrotherlyLove”185. 5.MovingPictureWorld,13March1915,1586–87. 6.WoodrowWilson,AHistoryoftheAmericanPeople,5vols.(NewYork: Harper&Brothers,1902). 7.D.W.Griffith,“ReplytotheNewYorkGlobe,”NewYorkGlobe,10April 1915,and“TheMotionPictureandtheWitchBurners,”inSilva,Focus,77–79, 96–99. 8. V. F. Calverton, “Current History in the World of Fine Arts: Cultural Barometer,”CurrentHistory49(September1938):45;MimiWhite,“TheBirth ofaNation:HistoryasPretext,”inTheBirthofaNation,ed.RobertLang(New Brunswick,N.J.:RutgersUniversityPress,1994),214–24. 9.LillianGishwithAnnPinchot,LillianGish:TheMovies,Mr.Griffithand Me(EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:Prentice-Hall,1969),136. 10.ThomasJ.Pressly,AmericansInterpretTheirCivilWar[1954](NewYork: FreePress,1966),265;PeterNovick,ThatNobleDream:The“ObjectivityQuestion”andtheAmericanHistoricalProfession(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,1988). 367
368 NotestoPages3–7
11.RichardBarry,“Five-DollarMoviesProphesied,”Editor,24April1915, 409. 12.AmericanhistorianFrederickJacksonTurnerofferedthemostthorough analysis of the pivotal distinction between the work of a historian and a mere fact-finding antiquarian in his article “The Significance of History” [1891], in RereadingFrederickJacksonTurner,ed.JohnFaragher(NewYork:HenryHolt, 1994),11–30. 13.MichaelRogin,“‘TheSwordBecameaFlashingVision’:D.W.Griffith’s TheBirthofaNation,”inLang,TheBirthofaNation,250–93. 14.GeorgeBancroft,TheHistoryoftheColonizationoftheUnitedStates,3 vols.(Boston:Little,Brown,1834–1841);TheHistoryoftheUnitedStates,9vols. (Boston:Little,Brown,1858–1866);TheAmericanRevolution,4vols.(Boston: Little,Brown,1872–1874). 15.Myuseofthetermhistoriographyisbasedontheprimarydefinitionand etymologicaltranslation:thewritingofhistory. 16.NewYorkPost,4March1915.Thequotewassubsequentlyusedinthe film’spromotion. 17.Griffith,“TheMotionPictureandtheWitchBurners,”97. 18.CompareRobertSherwood’sexhaustiveappraisalofTheCoveredWagon inhisTheBestMovingPicturesof1922–1923(Boston:Small,Maynard,1923), 71–77,andPhotoplay’sequallyhistory-ladenreview(May1923,64)withreviews of Robin Hood (Sherwood, Best Moving Pictures, 37–44; Variety, 20 October 1922,40),BeauBrummel(Photoplay,May1924,54),andThePatriot(Richard WattsJr.,TheFilmMercury,31August1928,6;Photoplay,June1928,53).ReviewsofthesemajorBritishandEuropeanproductionsfocusedonperformance anddecor. 19. See Richard Koszarski, An Evening’s Entertainment: The Age of the SilentFeaturePicture,1916–1928(NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1990),33. Basedonexhibitors’reports,thetopbox-officeattractionfor1923,1924,1925, 1926,and1927wasahistoricalfilm. 20.SeeWalterBennMichaels,OurAmerica:Nativism,Modernism,andPluralism(Durham,N.C.:DukeUniversityPress,1995),38–40. 21.TheexceptionswereAnitaLoosandFrancesMarion,whogenerallywere notprincipalwritersforhistoricalproductions,althoughLoosdidwriteoneof themajorhistoricalfilmsoftheearlysoundera,SanFrancisco(1936). 22.AccordingtoFilmDaily,themajorHollywoodstudiosproducedaround 350featuresperyearduringthe1930s,alongwith100independentproductions, butonlyabout80ofthesefilmsqualifiedasA-level,prestigefilms(e.g.,Grand Hotel,ABillofDivorcement,Scarface,WhatPriceHollywood?for1932).Serials, B pictures, lower-grade “Poverty Row” productions, quota quickies for foreign markets,anddocumentariesmadeupthebalance. 23.ThomasSchatz,TheGeniusoftheSystem(NewYork:Pantheon,1988), passim. 24.JohnFordmadeonly$57,000(Variety,12April1939,6).AtParamount, screenwriter-producerHowardEstabrooktookhome$125,000. 25.SeeappendixesAandB. 26.FrankS.Nugent,NewYorkTimes,10December1937.
NotestoPages7–10 369
27.SeeappendixesAthroughD. 28.AndréBazin,“TheEvolutionoftheLanguageofCinema,”inWhatIs Cinema?(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1967),1:23–40. 29.ChristianMetz,FilmLanguage:ASemioticsoftheCinema,trans.Michael Taylor(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1974);Metz,TheImaginarySignifier: PsychoanalysisandtheCinema(London:Macmillan,1982);Jean-LouisBaudry, “IdeologicalEffectsoftheBasicCinematographicApparatus”[1970],reprinted inNarrative,Apparatus,Ideology,ed.PhilipRosen,(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1986),186–98;Baudry,“TheApparatus:MetaphysicalApproaches totheImpressionofRealityintheCinema”[1975],inibid.,299–318. 30. Hortense Powdermaker, Hollywood: The Dream Factory (Boston: Little, Brown,1950). 31.MirceaEliade,TheSacredandtheProfane(NewYork:Harcourt,Brace, 1959);NorthropFrye,TheCriticalPath:AnEssayintheSocialContextofLiterary Criticism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973); Claude LéviStrauss,TheRawandtheCooked:IntroductiontoaScienceofMythology(New York:Harper&Row,1969). 32.RobertWarshow,“TheGangsterasTragicHero”and“MovieChronicle: TheWesterner,”inTheImmediateExperience(GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday, 1962),127–34,135–54;WillWright,SixGunsandSociety:AStructuralStudyof theWestern(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1975);SteveNeale,Genre (London:BFI,1980);ThomasSchatz,HollywoodGenres(Philadelphia:Temple UniversityPress,1981). 33.RickAltman,Film/Genre(London:BFI,1999).Altmannotonlyoutlines thehistoryofgenreanditsappropriationinfilmstudiesbutalso,incloseproductionstudiesoffilmssuchasDisraeli(1929)andFrankenstein(1931),showshow producersdevelopedfilmcyclesonamoreidiosyncratic,case-by-casebasis. 34.Schatz,TheGeniusoftheSystem;GeorgeF.Custen,TwentiethCentury’s Fox: Darryl F. Zanuck and the Culture of Hollywood (New York: Basic Books, 1997). 35. DavidBordwell,KristinThompson,andJanetStaiger,TheClassicalHollywoodCinema:FilmStyleandModeofProductionto1960(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1985). 36.MiriamHansen,“MassProductionoftheSenses:ClassicalCinemaas VernacularModernism,”inReinventingFilmStudies,ed.LindaWilliamsand ChristineGledhill(London:Arnold,1999),332–50.SeealsoJaneGaines,ed., ClassicalHollywoodNarrative:TheParadigmWars(Durham,N.C.:DukeUniversityPress,1992). 37.AlthoughDanaBenelli,“JunglesandNationalLandscapes:Documentary and the Hollywood Cinema of the 1930s” (Ph.D. diss., Iowa, 1992), has considered the unique production circumstances of Hollywood documentary films, the prevailing approach to “fiction” or narrative films of this period followsJohnO’ConnorandMartinJackson,eds.,AmericanHistory/AmericanFilm: Interpreting the Hollywood Image (New York: Ungar, 1979), and Robert Brent Toplin,HistorybyHollywood:TheUseandAbuseoftheAmericanPast(Urbana: UniversityofIllinoisPress,1996). 38.SergeiEisenstein,V.I.Pudovkin,andG.V.Alexandrov,“Statementon
370 NotestoPages10–16
Sound”[1928],reprintedinSergeiEisenstein,FilmForm(NewYork:Harcourt, 1949),257–60. 39.PascalBonitzer,“TheSilencesoftheVoice”[1975,Cahiersducinéma], reprintedinRosen,Narrative,Apparatus,Ideology,319–34,331–32. 40.Seechapters1,2,3,4,and7. 41. Tom Gunning, “The Cinema of Attractions: Early Film, Its Spectator and the Avant-Garde” in Early Cinema: Space, Frame, Narrative, ed. Thomas ElsaesserwithAdamBarker,(London:BFI,1990),56–63.MyuseofexcessdeliberatelysubvertsKristinThompson’santi-narrative,anti-Hollywoodformulation in “The Concept of Cinematic Excess” [1981], in Film Theory and Criticism, 6thed.,ed.LeoBraudyandMarshallCohen(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 2004),513–24. 42. PaulRotha,TheFilmtillNow(London:JonathanCape,1930);Rotha, DocumentaryFilm(London:Faber&Faber,1936). 43. DonaldCrafton,“ThePortraitasProtagonist:ThePrivateLifeofHenry VIII,”Iris14–15(fall1992),25–43.Crafton,thoughexploringKorda’svisualplay withobjectivityandpopularhistory,isnotwillingtoconsiderKordaahistorian. 44.MichaelT.Isenberg,WaronFilm(London:AssociatedUniversityPresses, 1981),33. 45. George Custen’s study of the Hollywood biopic (Bio/Pics: How HollywoodConstructedPublicHistory[NewBrunswick,N.J.:RutgersUniversityPress, 1992])owesmuchtoIsenberg’scharacterizationofHollywoodhistory. 46. FrederickJacksonTurner,“TheSignificanceofHistory”[1891],inRereading Frederick Jackson Turner, ed. John Faragher (New York: Henry Holt, 1994),18. 47. Novick,ThatNobleDream,111–32. 48.CarlBecker,“EverymanHisOwnHistorian,”AmericanHistoricalReview 37(1932):221–36. 49. AllanNevins,“What’stheMatterwithHistory?”SaturdayReviewofLiterature19(4February1939):3–4,16. 50.Custen,Bio/Pics,8. 51. LouisGottschalktoSamuelMarx,18April1935,box1,folder6,LouisR. GottschalkPapers,UniversityofChicago. 52. Isenberg,WaronFilm,43. 53. MarcC.Carnes,ed.,PastImperfect:HistoryAccordingtotheMovies(New York: Henry Holt, 1995); Peter C. Rollins, ed., The Columbia Companion to American History on Film: How the Movies Have Portrayed the American Past (NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2004). 54. Richard Slotkin’s film analysis in Gunfighter Nation (Norman: UniversityofOklahomaPress,1998)andNovick’sstudyofhistoriography(ThatNoble Dream,5)followanabbreviatedversionofLévi-Strauss’sdefinitioninStructural Anthropology(NewYork:BasicBooks,1963). 55.SeeSlotkin,GunfighterNation;Custen,Bio/Pics;Carnes,PastImperfect; Rollins,ColumbiaCompanion. 56. EditorsofCahiersducinéma,“JohnFord’sYoungMr.Lincoln”[1970], reprintedinRosen,Narrative,Apparatus,Ideology,444–82. 57. InhislengthystudyofthevicissitudesofLincolnhistoriography,Merrill
NotestoPages16–18 371
D.PetersonincludedonlyafewparagraphsonLincoln’scinematicrepresentation(LincolninAmericanMemory[NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1994]). SeealsoMarkS.Reinhart,AbrahamLincolnonScreen:AFilmography,1903– 1998(Jefferson,N.C.:McFarland,1998). 58.EditorsofCahiers,“JohnFord’sYoungMr.Lincoln,”456–58. 59. See O’Connor and Jackson, American History/American Film; Slotkin, GunfighterNation;Custen,Bio/Pics;KennethM.Cameron,AmericaonFilm: HollywoodandAmericanHistory(NewYork:Continuum,1997). 60. MarkW.RocheandVittorioHoesle,“Vico’sAgeofHeroesandtheAge ofMeninJohnFord’sFilmTheManWhoShotLibertyValance,”Clio23,no.2 (1994):131–47. 61. AlanDavidVertrees,Selznick’sVision(Austin:UniversityofTexasPress, 1997). 62. Isenberg,WaronFilm;MichaelBirdwell,CelluloidSoldiers:TheWarner Bros. Campaign against Nazism (New York: New York University Press, 1999). 63. Will Wright, Six Guns and Society: A Structural Study of the Western (Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1975);Slotkin,GunfighterNation;Ian CameronandDouglasPye,eds.,TheBookofWesterns(NewYork:Continuum, 1996). 64. WarrenSusman,“FilmandHistory:ArtifactandExperience,”Filmand History15,no.2(May1985):26–36. 65. Ibid.,31. 66. HaydenWhite,“HistoriographyandHistoriophoty.”AmericanHistorical Review93,no.5(1988):1193–99. 67. RobertRosenstonerestatedhispositionandthe“separatebutcomparable”thesisin“InventingHistoricalTruthontheSilverScreen,”Cineaste29,no. 2(spring2004):29–33. 68.MarcFerro,CinemaandHistory,trans.NaomiGreene(Detroit:Wayne StateUniversityPress,1988),161–63.PierreSorlinsharesFerro’sviewofHollywood“historians”inhisTheFilminHistory:RestagingthePast(Totowa,N.J.: Barnes&Noble,1980)). 69. Robert A. Rosenstone, Visions of the Past (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress,1995);RobertBurgoyne,FilmNation:HollywoodLooksatU.S. History(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1997);StevenC.Caton, Lawrence of Arabia: A Film’s Anthropology (Berkeley: University of California Press,1999);NatalieZemonDavis,SlavesonScreen(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,2001). 70. PhilipRosen,“DocumentandDocumentary:OnthePersistenceofthe Historical,” in Theorizing Documentary, ed. Michael Renov (New York: Routledge,1993),58–89. 71.PhilipRosen,ChangeMummified(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesota Press,2001),112–14,147–63. 72. Philip Rosen, “Securing the Historical: Historiography and the ClassicalCinema,”inCinemaHistories,CinemaPractices,ed.PatriciaMellencamp and Philip Rosen (Frederick, Md.: University Publications of America, 1984), 17–34.
372 NotestoPages18–21
73.Crafton,“PortraitasProtagonist,”28–43. 74.Thisseparationbetweentheimageandthewordinhistoricalcinemais notconfinedtolate-twentieth-centuryscholarshipbuthasitsrootsinearlyfilm critics’ (e.g., Rudolf Arnheim, Sergei Eisenstein, Béla Balázs, Gilbert Seldes) qualms about and predictions for sound cinema. Although some, like Balázs, continuedtoarticulateabasicantagonismbetweenspokenwordandimage;others,likeEisenstein,believedinthepossibilityofan“audiovisualcounterpoint” (“A Dialectical Approach to Film Form,” in Film Form [New York: Harcourt, 1977],55).AlthoughEisensteinandothershopedthatsoundwoulderasethe presenceofprojectedtextincinema,theiraccountsofAmericancinemainthe earlysounderatakeupthequestionofwordandimageatitsmostbasiclevel: production. 75.PamelaFalkenberg,“Rewritingthe‘ClassicHollywoodCinema’:Textual Analysis,IronicDistance,andtheWesternintheCritiqueofCorporateCapitalism”(Ph.D.diss.,UniversityofIowa,1983). 76.SeeappendixAforthenumberofreleases.Afterpeakingin1940atmore thanthirtyfilms,Americanhistoricalfilmmakingplummetedandeventuallystabilizedattenfilmsthroughoutthe1940s. 77.J.E.Smyth,“Cimarron:TheNewWesternHistoryin1931,”Film& History33,no.1(2003):9–17;Smyth,“YoungMr.Lincoln:BetweenMyth andHistoryin1939,”RethinkingHistory7,no.2(summer2003):193–214; Smyth, “Revisioning Modern American History in the Age of Scarface (1932),”HistoricalJournalofFilm,Radio,andTelevision24,no.4(October 2004):535–63. 78.TheScreenWriters’Guildwasformedon6April1933andreceivedNationalLaborRelationsBoardcertificationin1938,butstudioheadspreventeda guildshopuntilMay1941.SeeTinoBalio,GrandDesign:HollywoodasaModernBusinessEnterprise,1930–1939(NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1993), 84–85. 79.See,forexample,GarthJowett,Film:TheDemocraticArt(Boston:Little, Brown, 1976), and Thomas Schatz, Hollywood Genres (Philadelphia: Temple UniversityPress,1981). 80.Studios,particularlyWarnerBrothers,keptreviewsonfile. 81.KMG,notetoDOS,21October1932,box29,folder16,KennethMacgowanCollection,UCLASpecialCollections. 82.Balio,GrandDesign,405–6;thesewereVariety’stop-grossingfilms. 83.Seeindividualexhibitors’reviewsinVariety. 84.LeoRosten,Hollywood(NewYork:HBJ,1941),231. 85. Colin Shindler, Hollywood in Crisis: Cinema and American Society, 1929–1939(NewYork:Routledge,1996). 86.See,forexample,RogerDooley’sworkon1930scinema,FromScarface toScarlett(NewYork:HBJ,1981);EugeneRosow,BorntoLose:TheGangster FilminAmerica(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1978);JohnO’Connorand MartinA.Jackson,eds.,AmericanHistory/AmericanFilm;InterpretingtheHollywood Image (New York: Ungar, 1979); Thomas Pauly, “Gone with the Wind andTheGrapesofWrathasHollywoodHistoriesoftheDepression,”Journalof PopularFilm3(1974):202–18;Custen,Bio/Pics;LaryMay,TheBigTomorrow:
NotestoPages22–32 373
HollywoodandthePoliticsoftheAmericanWay(Chicago:UniversityofChicago Press,2000);Shindler,HollywoodinCrisis;andBalio,GrandDesign. 87.Therefore,thehistoricaladaptationofCooper’sLastoftheMohicansis amajorpartofchapter3,whileIignoretheadaptationsofTomSawyer(1930, 1938), Huckleberry Finn (1931, 1939), and Moby Dick (1930), which do not concernthemselvestextuallywithhistoricalevents. 88.OrsonWelles,“StatementonHisPurposeinMakingCitizenKane,”in Perspectives on Citizen Kane, ed. Ronald Gottesman (New York: G. K. Hall, 1996),23–25. 1.TheNewAmericanHistory 1.RobertE.Sherwood,“RenaissanceinHollywood,”AmericanMercury16, no.64(April1929):431–37,432–33. 2.GilbertSeldes,AnHourwiththeMoviesandtheTalkies(Philadelphia:J. B.Lippincott,1929);RudolfArnheim,Film,trans.L.M.SievekingandIanF.D. Morrow(London:Faber&Faber,1933);BélaBálazs,DerGeistdesFilms[1930], inTheTheoryofFilm(London:Arno,1952). 3.Sherwood,“RenaissanceinHollywood,”433. 4.See,forinstance,RobertE.Sherwood,Life,13March1924,26. 5.StephenV.BenéttoRosemaryBenét,December1929,inSelectedLetters,ed.CharlesFenton(NewHaven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress,1960),197. 6.Ibid.,202–3. 7.“Weby,”inVariety,27August1930,21;RichardWatts,NewYorkHerald Tribune,26August1930. 8.MordauntHall,NewYorkTimes,26August1930,24:1. 9. Harry Alan Potamkin, “Storm over Asia and Abraham Lincoln,” New Masses(October1930):16. 10. The Virginian, dialogue-continuity, final script, 14 May 1929, 1, ParamountCollection,AcademyofMotionPictureArtsandSciences(AMPAS). 11.JerryHoffman,“TheVirginian,”LosAngelesExaminer,1April1929. 12.MordauntHall,NewYorkTimes,20September1930,15:4. 13.WalterNobleBurns,TheSagaofBillytheKid(GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday,1925). 14.Ibid.,53–54. 15.Ibid.,68–69. 16.BillytheKid,1930finalscript,UCLA. 17.RalphA.Lynd,“BillytheKid,”Glendale(Calif.)NewPress,2December 1930,reprintedinTheAmericanWestonFilm:MythandReality,ed.RichardA. Maynard(RochellePark,N.Y.:HaydenBookCo.,1974),78–79;ElenaBoland, “HonestyorHokum—WhichDoesthePublicWant?”LosAngelesTimes,2November1930. 18.HollywoodReporter,18September1930. 19. SimeSilverman,Variety,29October1930,17,27. 20. Photoplay,November1930,52. 21. BenjaminHampton,HistoryoftheAmericanFilmIndustryfromItsBeginningsto1931[1931](NewYork:DoverPublishing,1970),320.
374 NotestoPages32–35
22. RKO’smergeralsomarkedthefirstalliancebetweencinemaandradio companies,orfilmandsound. 23. JackAlicoate,ed.,The1930“FilmDaily”YearBookofMotionPictures (FilmDaily,1930),386. 24. Inspiteofhersuccess,FerberisallbutforgotteninrecentstudiesofAmericanliterature.OneexceptionisFredPheil’s“MontageDynasty:AMarketStudy inAmericanHistoricalFiction,”inAnotherTaletoTell:PoliticsandNarrativein PostmodernCulture(London:Verso,1990),151–91,whichrecoversasenseof herwidespreadappealandprestige. 25. FrederickJacksonTurner,“TheSignificanceoftheFrontierinAmerican History,”inRereadingFrederickJacksonTurner,ed.JohnMackFaragher(New York:HenryHolt,1994),31–60;TheodoreRoosevelt,TheWinningoftheWest (NewYork:G.P.Putnam’sSons,1907),1:273–74;CharlesA.Beard,“TheFrontierinAmericanHistory,”NewRepublic25(16February1921):349–50;John C.Almach,“TheShibbolethoftheFrontier,”HistoricalOutlook16(May1925): 197–202; Kerwin Lee Klein, Frontiers of the Historical Imagination (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 21; Bernard De Voto, “Footnote on the West,”Harper’s155(November1927):714–22;CareyMcWilliams,“Mythsof theWest,”NorthAmericanReview232(November1931):424–32. 26. GeraldNash,CreatingtheWest:HistoricalInterpretations,1890–1990(Albuquerque:UniversityofNewMexicoPress,1991),13–14;Beard,Almach,andMcWilliamsweresomeofhismostprominentacademiccriticsinthepostwarera. 27. Edna Ferber, Cimarron (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Doran, 1930), preface.Sherefrainedfromappendingherbibliographyonlybecauseshethought thatthesehistoricalcredentialswoulddiscouragepotentialreaders.EdnaFerber, APeculiarTreasure(NewYork:Doubleday,Doran,1939),295. 28.Ferber,PeculiarTreasure,339;JulieGoldsmithGilbert,Ferber:ABiography(GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday,1978),42. 29.PercyH.Boynton,TheRediscoveryoftheFrontier(Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress,1931),v–vi,179. 30.DorothyVanDoren,“APioneerFairyStory,”Nation,23April1930,494. SeealsoreviewsofCimarron:“InOddOklahoma,”Time,24March1930,80; G.T.H.,NewRepublic,30April1930,308;StanleyVestal,SaturdayReviewof Literature,22March1930,841. 31. E. Douglas Branch, Westward: The Romance of the American Frontier (NewYork:D.Appleton,1930),v. 32.HollywoodNews,12August1930;EdwardChurchill,Exhibitors’Herald World,13September1930,Cimarronclippingfile,AMPAS. 33.Cimarronproductionfiles,RKOCollection,UCLAArtsLibrarySpecialCollections. 34.Ferber’sShowBoat,aBroadwaymusical,wasreleasedin1929togreat acclaimasasemitalkingpicturestarringHelenMorgan,andTheRoyalFamilyof Broadwaywasreleasedthefollowingyear. 35.PaulPowell,“Storytreatmentandcritique,”28June1930,5,Cimarron scriptcollection,RKOCollection,UCLAArtsLibrarySpecialCollections. 36. William Christie MacLeod, The American Indian Frontier (New York: AlfredA.Knopf,1928);EstabrookCollection,Cimarronresearch,AMPAS.
NotestoPages35–44 375
37.MacLeod,AmericanIndianFrontier,vii,366. 38.Klein,FrontiersoftheHistoricalImagination,146–47. 39.HowardEstabrook,Cimarron,finalshootingscript,27August1930,dialogueandcontinuity,12January1931,AMPAS. 40. Sergei Eisenstein, Vsevolod Pudovkin, and Grigori Alexandrov, “StatementonSound”[1928],reprintedinFilmTheoryandCriticism,ed.LeoBraudy andMarshallCohen(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004),370–72. 41. Fred E. Sutton and A. B. MacDonald, Hands Up! (New York: Bobbs- Merrill,1927). 42.Compare“AdaptationandStructureofScreenPlay,”22May1930;first draft,19June1930,35;andshootingscript,27August1930,HowardEstabrook Collection,AMPAS. 43.ElizabethMadoxRoberts,TheGreatMeadow(NewYork:VikingPress, 1930). 44.TheGreatMeadow,treatmentbyCharlesBrabin,26May1930;continuity,14June1930;shootingscript,12August1930;andtitles,dictatedbyEdith Ellis,5November1930,MGMCollection,USC.Dialogueandcuttingcontinuitydated12December1930,withforewordandinserts. 45.Roosevelt,WinningoftheWest,1:273–74. 46.Ibid.,147–48. 47.Turner,“TheSignificanceoftheFrontierinAmericanHistory,”32. 48.EarlydraftsofthescriptandnotesconfirmthatEstabrookconceivedthis structuralpracticefromthebeginning. 49. Zane Grey, The Vanishing American (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1925).SeealsoRedSkin(Paramount,1929),alsostarringDix.SeeMichaelJ. Riley,“TrappedintheHistoryofFilm:TheVanishingAmerican,”inHollywood’s Indian,ed.PeterRollinsandJohnE.O’Connor(Lexington:UniversityPressof Kentucky,1998),58–72. 50. He is also one of the first mixed-blood Indian characters in American literaturenottobedemonizedasaracialmonster.SeeHarryBrown,InjunJoe’s Ghost:TheIndianMixed-BloodinAmericanWriting(Columbia:Universityof MissouriPress,2004). 51.Estabrook’sannotatedcopyofFerber’sCimarron,10–11,61,88,Howard EstabrookCollection,AMPAS;Estabrook,“AdaptationandStructureofScreen Play,”22May1930,A20;firstdraft,19June1930,35;shootingscript,27August 1930,A23. 52. Will Wright, Six Guns and Society: A Structural Study of the Western (Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1975),17–28;JohnG.Cawelti,TheSixGunMystique(BowlingGreen,Ohio:BowlingGreenUniversityPopularPress, 1971),35–46;RobertWarshow,“MovieChronicle:TheWesterner,”inTheImmediateExperience(GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday,1962),135–54;JimKitses, HorizonsWest(Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1969);andRichardSlotkin,GunfighterNation(Norman:UniversityofOklahomaPress,1998),233,all sharethisperspective. 53.SeeRickAltman’ssummaryinFilm/Genre(London:BFI,1999),19–29. 54.Slotkin,GunfighterNation,235–36. 55.Nash,CreatingtheWest,206.Cimarron’scommitmenttourbanization
376 NotestoPages45–75
asadefiningforceinwesternhistoryalsoanticipatedArthurM.SchlesingerSr.’s academicstudybytwoyears;seeTheRiseoftheCity,1878–98(NewYork:Macmillan,1933). 56.Slotkin,GunfighterNation,34. 57.Ibid.,5,34;PeterStanfield,Hollywood,Westernsandthe1930s:TheLost Trail(Exeter:UniversityofExeterPress,2001),34. 58.Slotkin,GunfighterNation,14. 59.Ibid,38–42. 60.LewisMumford,TheGoldenDay(NewYork:Boni&Liveright,1926), 73. 61.DavidM.Kennedy,OverHere:TheFirstWorldWarandAmericanSociety (NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1980),218–19;WillaCather,OneofOurs (NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,1922),118. 62.Ferber,Cimarron,367. 63.JackAlicoate,ed.,The1932“FilmDaily”YearBook(FilmDaily,1932). 64.EdwinSchallert,“PioneerDaysWellDepicted,”LosAngelesTimes, 7February1931;ThorntonDelehanty,“TheNewFilms,”NewYorkEvening Post,27January1931;HowardR.Barnes,“Cimarron,”NewYorkHeraldTribune, 16 January 1931; Mordaunt Hall, New York Times, 27 January 1931, 26:5. 65.RobertSherwood,“TheMovingPictureAlbum:Cimarron,”Hollywood Reporter,7February1931. 66. Richard Watts Jr., “Cimarron a Triumph for Radio,” New York Herald Tribune,1February1931,3. 67.CarlBecker,“EverymanHisOwnHistorian,”1931addresstotheAmericanHistoricalAssociation(ElPaso,Tex.:AcademicReprints,1960),16–17. 68. See Patricia Limerick, Legacy of Conquest: The Unbroken Past of the AmericanWest(NewYork:W.W.Norton,1987);RichardWhite,WesternHistory (Washington,D.C.:AmericanHistoricalAssociation,1997);ValerieMatsumoto and Blake Allmendinger, eds., Over the Edge: Remapping the American West (Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1999);NeilFoley,TheWhiteScourge: Mexicans,Blacks,andPoorWhitesinTexasCottonCulture(Berkeley:University of California Press, 1997); George Sanchez, Becoming Mexican American (Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1997). 69.PaulRotha,TheFilmtillNow(London:SpringBooks,1967),447–48. 70.ThorntonDelehanty,“TheNewFilms,”EveningPost,27January1931. 71. Lewis Jacobs, The Rise of the American Film: A Critical History (New York:Harcourt,Brace,1939),531. 72.RonaldHaver,DavidO.Selznick’sHollywood(NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf, 1980),67. 73. William A. Johnston, “Writer’s Gold in Hollywood,” Graphic, 2 May 1931, 172; Howard Estabrook, “This Amusement School of Ours,” Hollywood Reporter,8May1931. 74.Estabrook,TheConquerors,box184,firstdraftcontinuity,24December 1931,1–2,UCLAArtsLibrarySpecialCollections. 75.TheConquerors,productionfiles,boxp-40,5-pageundatedmemofrom VorkapichtoSelznick,UCLALibraryArtsSpecialCollections.
NotestoPages53–59 377
76.SilverDollar,storyfile,LucienHubbardtoJackWarner,25May1932, WarnerBrothersArchive,USC. 77.PaulGreentoLucienHubbard,24May1932,WarnerBrothersArchive, USC. 78.Zanuckconferencenotes,9March1932,11July1932,WarnerBrothers Archive,USC. 79.ThorntonDelehanty,NewYorkEveningPost,23December1932;RichardWatts,NewYorkHeraldTribune,23December1932;MordauntHall,New YorkTimes,23December1932,20. 80.Sherwood,“RenaissanceinHollywood,”437. 81.DFZtoHuston,TheMightyBarnum,storyfile,5February1934,TwentiethCentury–FoxCollection,USC. 2.ContemporaryHistoryintheAgeofScarface,1932 1.Disraelipressbook(1929),2,LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity. 2.Land,Variety,9October1929. 3.FilmproductionfinishedinMay,andthefilmwasreleasedinSeptember 1931. 4. John S. Cohen Jr., New York Sun, 17 September 1931; Richard Watts, NewYorkHeraldTribune,17September1931. 5.Rush,Variety,22September1931,22,26. 6.AlthoughCarlosClarensoccasionallycitedthebasisforclassicgangster scripts,hewasnotinterestedinthepotentialofthesehistoricaladaptations.CarlosClarens,CrimeMovies:FromGriffithtoTheGodfatherandBeyond(New York:W.W.Norton,1980),43,53,66. 7.SeePierreSorlin,TheFilminHistory:RestagingthePast(Totowa,N.J.: Barnes&Noble,1980);PhilipRosen“SecuringtheHistorical:Historiography and the Classical Cinema,” in Cinema Histories, Cinema Practices, ed. PatriciaMellencampandPhilipRosen(Frederick,Md.:UniversityPublicationsof America,1984),24–25;Rosen,ChangeMummified(Minneapolis:Universityof MinnesotaPress,2001),ch.4;MarcFerro,CinemaandHistory(Detroit:Wayne StateUniversityPress,1988);GeorgeF.Custen,Bio/Pics:HowHollywoodConstructed Public History (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1992), 3–31; Richard Slotkin, Gunfighter Nation (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press,1998);MarcC.Carnes,ed.,PastImperfect:HistoryAccordingtotheMovies(NewYork:HenryHolt,1995). 8.RobertWarshow,“TheGangsterasTragicHero,”firstpublishedinthe PartisanReviewinFebruary1948. 9.AndrewBergman,We’reintheMoney:DepressionAmericaandItsFilms (NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress,1971);EugeneRosow,BorntoLose:The GangsterFilminAmerica(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1978);andRobert B. Ray, A Certain Tendency of the Hollywood Cinema, 1930–1980 (Princeton, N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,1985),74–77. 10.StephenLouisKarpf,TheGangsterFilm:Emergence,Variation,andDecay of a Genre (New York: Arno, 1973), 212. See also Carlos Clarens, Crime Movies(NewYork:W.W.Norton,1980),andJonathanMunby,PublicEnemies,
378 NotestoPages60–63
PublicHeroes(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1999),forsimilarperspectives. 11. Garth Jowett, “Bullets, Beer, and the Hays Office,” in American History/AmericanFilm:InterpretingtheHollywoodImage,ed.JohnO’Connorand MartinA.Jackson(NewYork:Ungar,1979),57–75;Clarens,CrimeMovies,81; RichardMaltby,“TragicHeroes?AlCaponeandtheSpectacleofCriminality, 1948–1931,”inScreeningthePast:The6thAustralianHistoryandFilmConferencePapers,ed.JohnBenson(Bundoora:LaTrobeUniversity,1993),112–19; Maltby,“GriefintheLimelight:AlCapone,HowardHughes,theHaysCode andthePoliticsoftheUnstableText,”inMoviesandPolitics:TheDynamicRelationship,ed.JamesCombs(NewYork:Garland,1993),133–81;Munby,Public Enemies,PublicHeroes. 12.DavidE.Ruth,InventingthePublicEnemy:TheGangsterinAmerican Culture,1918–1934(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1996),1. 13.WalterNobleBurns,TheOne-WayRide:TheRedTrailofChicagoGangland from Prohibition to Jake Lingle (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Doran, 1931);FredD.Pasley,AlCapone:TheBiographyofaSelf-madeMan(Garden City, N.Y.: Garden City Publishing Company, 1930); John Bright, Hizzoner BigBillThompson,anIdyllofChicago(NewYork:JonathanCape&Harrison Smith,1930). 14.PrestonWilliamSlosson,TheGreatCrusadeandAfter,1914–1928(New York:Macmillan,1930);LouisM.Hacker,AmericanProblemsofToday:AHistoryoftheUnitedStatessincetheWorldWar(NewYork:F.S.Crofts,1938). 15.Slosson,TheGreatCrusade,xv,95. 16. Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity Question” and the AmericanHistoricalProfession(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1988); CharlesBeardandMaryBeard,TheRiseofAmericanCivilization(NewYork: Macmillan,1927). 17.FrederickLewisAllen,OnlyYesterday:AnInformalHistoryoftheNineteenTwenties(NewYork:Harper&Brothers,1931),xiii. 18.Ibid.,ch.10,esp.245–63.Caponeistheonlyfigurewhomeritedanentire chapterinAllen’shistory. 19.Universal’sBroadway(1929)allegedlybasedtwoofitscharactersonLegs DiamondandTexasGuinan,butitreceivedlesscriticalattentionthanZanuck’s filmdid. 20.Pasley,AlCapone,11;Burns,One-WayRide,31–32. 21.Pasley,AlCapone,52–53.Nails,atwice-woundedlieutenantofthe101st IllinoisInfantry,receivedtheFrenchCroixdeGuerre. 22.JosephGollumb,“MeetingtheCrimeWave:AComparisonofMethods,” Nation,January1921,82;FredL.Holmes,“MakingCriminalsoutofSoldiers,” Nation,22July1925,114;Ruth,InventingthePublicEnemy,18,58. 23.Clarens,CrimeMovies,53. 24.WarnerBrothersCollection,USC;GeorgeF.Custen,TwentiethCentury’sFox:DarrylF.ZanuckandtheCultureofHollywood(NewYork:BasicBooks, 1997),136;Clarens,CrimeMovies,53.AlthoughNewYorkTimesreviewsreveal thatGriffith(MusketeersofPigAlley,1913)andAllanDwan(BigBrother,1922) hired gangsters as technical advisers, their work would have been confined to
NotestoPages63–72 379
setdesignonthesecontemporaryandfictitiousnarratives,ratherthanthemore historicallymindedfilmbiographiesoftheearly1930s. 25.Variety,5November1930;CreightonPeet,“DoorwaytoHell,”Outlook, November1930. 26.TheNationalBoardofReviewandFilmDailyalsoincludedThePublic Enemy.SeeJackAlicoate,ed.,The1931“FilmDaily”YearBookofMotionPictures(FilmDaily,1932),23,63.Ayearbefore,FilmDailylistedDoorwaytoHell inthe“HonorRoll”ofmemorablepictures.Criticsfrom350majornewspapers, tradepapers,andfanjournalsacrossAmericavotedinthesepolls. 27.Seepressbook,BlondieJohnson(WarnerBrothers),1933,AMPAS. 28.W.R.Burnett,LittleCaesar(London:Cape,1929),author’snote. 29.SeeLeonardJ.LeffandJeroldL.Simmons,TheDameintheKimono: Hollywood,Censorship,andtheProductionCode(Lexington:UniversityPressof Kentucky,2001). 30.Burns,One-WayRide,29–30. 31.Ibid.,164–65. 32.Pasley,AlCapone,20–21. 33.Ibid.,29–30. 34.Novick,ThatNobleDream,111. 35.Ibid.,345–46. 36.LittleCaesar,finalscript,5,14,54,77,121,AMPAS. 37.Burns,One-WayRide,31. 38.Bright,HizzonerBigBillThompson,120–21. 39.AthreatenedlawsuitallegedlybroughthimtoHollywood. 40. Warner Brothers Collection, State Historical Society, Madison, Wis., citedinRogerDooley’sFromScarfacetoScarlett(NewYork:HBJ,1981),254. SeealsoHenryCohen,“AnOrdinaryThug,”introductiontoThePublicEnemy (Madison:UniversityofWisconsin,1981),16–17. 41.LetterfromDFZtoJasonJoy,6January1931,PCAfiles,AMPAS. 42.LetterfromAugustVollmertoWillHays(scriptreview),20April1931, PCAfiles,AMPAS. 43.HenryCohennoticedtheserevisionsinhisintroductiontothescreenplay (“AnOrdinaryThug,”11–33)butcalledthem“adaptationsofreality”(17). 44.Ibid.,14. 45. See Warner Brothers script, 18 January 1931. Zanuck’s production of ThreeonaMatch(1932)wouldalsostructurethepast(1919–1931)withasimilaruseofdates,headlines,andnewsreelfootage,butitstaleofthreewomenin the1920s,perhapsinspiredbyFrederickLewisAllen’sOnlyYesterday,wasnot basedonactualpersons. 46.Sid,“ThePublicEnemy,”Variety,29April1931,12. 47.Thisforewordisnotinanyoftheexistingscriptsandwasthereforeadded inpostproduction,mostlikelyattheinsistenceoftheproducer. 48.WilliamBoehnel,“PublicEnemyaStrongTalkie,”NewYorkWorld-Telegram, unmarked press clipping, Beer and Blood story file, Warner Brothers Archive, USC. 49.MortonwasthrownfromhishorsewhileridinginLincolnParkinthe springof1923.Hisassociatesavengedhisdeathinthetraditionalmanner—ex-
380 NotestoPages73–80
ceptthistime,Two-GunLouisAlterieshotthehorse.KennethAllsop,TheBootleggers:TheStoryofChicago’sProhibitionEra(NewRochelle,N.Y.:Arlington House,1968),230. 50. Production reports, 26 February 1931; final shooting script, 18 January 1931,WarnerBrothersArchive,USC. 51.LettertoDFZfromJasonJoy,26January1931,PCAfiles,AMPAS. 52.WalterNobleBurns,TheSagaofBillytheKid(GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday,1925). 53. Bright also emphasized the corrupt mayor’s frontier background (HizzonerBigBillThompson,10–12). 54.Burns,One-WayRide,1. 55.Ibid.,19.Burnswasnottheonlyonetomakethisconnection.SeeO.O. McIntyre,“BadMan,”Cosmopolitan,February1931,52–53. 56.DavidE.Ruth,InventingthePublicEnemy(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1996),32. 57.Pasley,AlCapone,113,263.SeealsoFredPasley’sowninformalhistory ofthepostwarrackets,MusclingIn(NewYork:IvesWashburn,1931),wherehe againlikensthegrowthofcrimetoaWesternFrontbattle(15). 58. John Landesco, Organized Crime in Chicago (1929; reprint, Chicago: UniversityofChicagoPress,1968),221. 59.SeeIrvinG.Wyllie,TheSelf-madeManinAmerica:TheMythofRags toRiches(NewYork:FreePress,1963);HerbertA.Leibowitz,FabricatingLives: ExplorationsinAmericanAutobiography(NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,1989). 60.Pasley,AlCapone,9,7–8,142–43. 61.Ibid.,336. 62.SeeJohnMcCarty,HollywoodGangland:TheMovies’LoveAffairwith theMob(NewYork:St.Martin’sPress,1993). 63. Excerpts from Scarface, entitled “Gun Girl,” were serialized in UnderworldMagazinefromApriltoJuly1929andwereprobablythefirstthingtocatch Hughes’seye.ThebookwaslaterpublishedasScarfacein1930. 64.SeeWilliamMacAdams,BenHecht(NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons, 1990),124–26. 65.ArmitageTrail,Scarface[1930](London:Bloomsbury,1997). 66.Ibid.,37. 67.Ibid.,41,44. 68.RobertE.Sherwood,“MovingPictureAlbum:Scarface,”HollywoodCitizen-News, 2 April 1932, mentions Pasley as a collaborator. Also a memo from HawkstoRosson,28March1931,mentionsthatPasleyassociateshelpedwith historicaldata(HawksCollection,BrighamYoungUniversity[BYU]). 69.Afterfurthercensorship,ColisimowaschangedtoCostillo,andBannon becameO’Hara. 70. Scarface, Miller typescript, folder 6, p. 3, undated, Hawks Collection, BYU. 71.Joy’sresumeoffilm,7March1931,folder1,PCAfiles,AMPAS. 72.JoytoHughes,1May1931,folder1,PCAfiles,AMPAS;emphasisadded. 73.TelegramfromHays,10December1931andJoyreplytoJuliaKellydescribingHughes’srefusal,19December1931,folder1,PCAfiles,AMPAS.
NotestoPages80–91 381
74. Letter from publicity director Lincoln Quarberg to Hughes, February 1932,LincolnQuarbergCollection,AMPAS. 75.ToddMcCarthy,HowardHawks(NewYork:GrovePress,1997),151. 76.Variety,24May1932,29. 77. Sherwood, “Moving Picture Album.” A syndicated column, it also appearedinPawtucketTimes,2April1932. 78.D.W.Griffith’sAbrahamLincolnwasreleasedtomixedreviewsin1930. 79.LetterfromJoeBreentoLouisB.Mayer,6March1934,PCAfiles,AMPAS. 80.Clarens,CrimeMovies,76. 81.ManhattanMelodrama,advertisingmanualbyHowardDietz,nodate, 35–36,MGMCollection,AMPAS. 82.Compare5December1933script(35)to1February1934script,MGM ScriptCollection,AMPAS. 83.DanaBenelli,“JunglesandNationalLandscapes:Documentaryandthe HollywoodCinemainthe1930s”(Ph.D.diss.,UniversityofIowa,1992),1–2; Munby,PublicEnemies,PublicHeroes,19,84. 84.Variety,28April1934,29May1934.SeeUSCoutline(n.d),andscripts, 26January1934and5February1934. 85.MaryMcCall’sversion,28May1935(2)substantiallyreworkedbyFinkel andErickson,11June1935,WarnerBrothersArchive,USC. 86.Dillinger’snameneverappearsintheDr.SocratesscriptsbyCain,Abem Finkel, and Carl Erickson or in the press books advertising the film (Warner BrothersArchive,USC).BartonMacLaneasRedBastion,theDillingerstand-in, ismerelyreferredtoas“PublicEnemyNo.1ofthescreen.” 87.LittleCaesar,PublicEnemy,andScarfacewererefusedlicensesfromthe Hays office, and in 1949 Joe Breen refused to allow Hughes exhibition rights (folder3,PCAfiles,AMPAS).SeealsolettertoWarnerfromJoeBreen,24August1936,LittleCaesar,PCAfiles,AMPAS,. 88.NewYorkTimes,27May1936,27:1. 89.Compare28April1939longsynopsisbyLewisMorton(17,64)toJohnson’s13July1939script(26–27,149),bothFoxCollection,USC,whicheliminatesreferencestoPrettyBoyFloydandTom.Thefilmalsohasnohistorical forewordorsuperimposedtext. 3.CompetingFrontiers,1933–1938 1. See Robert Warshow, “The Movie Chronicle: The Westerner,” in The ImmediateExperience(GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday,1962);JohnG.Cawelti, TheSix-GunMystique(BowlingGreen,Ohio:BowlingGreenUniversityPopularPress,1971);WillWright,SixGunsandSociety:AStructuralStudyofthe Western(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1975). 2.PeterStanfield,Hollywood,Westernsandthe1930s:TheLostTrail(Exeter:UniversityofExeterPress,2001). 3.AlexanderHamilton(1931,WarnerBrothers),SilverDollar(1932,WarnerBrothers),TheMightyBarnum(1934,TwentiethCentury–Fox),andSutter’s Gold(1935,Universal).
382 NotestoPages91–96
4.Custen,Bio/Pics:HowHollywoodConstructedPublicHistory(NewBrunswick,N.J.:RutgersUniversityPress,1992). 5.AnnieOakley,storyreport,22April1935,RKOproductionfiles,UCLA. 6.CourtneyRyleyCooper,AnnieOakley:WomanatArms(NewYork:Duffield,1927). 7.RKOproductionfiles,UCLAArtsLibrarySpecialCollections. 8.Thereisnoforewordintherevisedfinalshootingscript(15August1935), buttherewasoneinthecuttingcontinuity(n.d.),RKOScriptCollection,UCLA ArtsLibrarySpecialCollections. 9.Estimatingscript,13July1935,53,61. 10.Estimatingscript,84;revisedshootingscript,96. 11.“AdvanceInfoonAnnieOakley,”RKOpublicity(1935),3,AMPAS. 12.SeeRichardDyer,Stars(London:BFI,1979);Custen,Bio/Pics,46–47. 13.“AdvanceInfoonAnnieOakley,”4. 14.JoyS.Kasson,BuffaloBill’sWildWest:Celebrity,Memory,andPopular History(NewYork:Hill&Wang,2001). 15. Jill Watts, “Sacred and Profane: Mae West’s (re)Presentation of Western Religion,”inOvertheEdge:RemappingtheAmericanWest,ed.ValerieMatsumoto andBlakeAllmendinger(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1999),50–64. 16.DavidToddtoLake,25November1936,box2,folder30,StuartLake Papers,HenryE.HuntingtonLibrary,SanMarino,Calif. 17.Thehistoricalsettingwasthefirstelementmentionedbythecritics. 18.JohnBalderston,TheLastoftheMohicans,notesandtreatment,7March 1935,EdwardSmallCollection,USC. 19.SeeespeciallyRichardSlotkin,TheFatalEnvironment:TheMythofthe FrontierintheAgeofIndustrialization,1800–1890(Norman:UniversityofOklahomaPress,1985),81–106. 20. Richard Slotkin, Regeneration through Violence: The Mythology of the AmericanFrontier,1600–1860(Middletown,Conn.:WesleyanUniversityPress, 1973),6. 21.Slotkin’sargumentremainsthesamethroughouthistrilogy(1973–1992), buthismostdirectaddressoftheoppositionbetweenmythandhistoryisinGunfighterNation:TheMythoftheFrontierinTwentieth-CenturyAmerica(Norman: UniversityofOklahomaPress,1998),5–6.Forasimilarargument,seeMartin BarkerandRogerSabin,TheLastingoftheMohicans(Jackson:UniversityPress ofMississippi,1995). 22.JamesFenimoreCooper,TheLastoftheMohicans:ANarrativeof1757 [1826](NewYork:Penguin,1986),1.Subsequentreferencesaretothe1986edition,unlessotherwisenoted. 23.Ibid.,12–13,20–21,30,54–56,120–23,179. 24.JohnMcWilliams,“TheHistoricalContextofTheLastoftheMohicans,” inTheLastoftheMohicans,ed.McWilliams(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 1990);JamesF.Beard,“HistoricalIntroduction,”inTheLastoftheMohicans, ed.JamesF.Beard,JamesA.Sappenfield,andE.N.Feltskog(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1983);WilliamKelly,PlottingAmerica’sPast:Fenimore CooperandtheLeatherstockingTales(Carbondale:SouthernIllinoisUniversity Press,1983).
NotestoPages96–101 383
25.JamesFenimoreCooper,TheLastoftheMohicans:ANarrativeof1757, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Carey & Lea, 1826). The date is even emphasized with shadowedtype.Comparethiswiththe1864edition(NewYork:JamesGregory) andanyofthemanycontemporaryeditions. 26.Cooper,LastoftheMohicans,11–14. 27.IanK.Steele,“CooperandClio:TheSourcesfor‘ANarrativeof1757,’” CanadianReviewofAmericanStudies20(winter1989):121–35,123.Thomas Mante’sTheHistoryoftheLateWarinNorthAmerica(London,1772)isthebestknowndefensebyaBritishhistorianofMontcalm’sconduct. 28.Cooper,LastoftheMohicans,180. 29.Ibid.,31,also117. 30.Ibid.,11. 31.Kelly,PlottingAmerica’sPast,49–50. 32.Cooper,LastoftheMohicans,102–3,169–70. 33.SeeSteele,“CooperandClio”;TerenceMartin,“FromAtrocitytoRequiem:HistoryinTheLastoftheMohicans,”inNewEssaysonTheLastofthe Mohicans,ed.H.DanielPeck(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1992), 47–66; Robert Lawson Peebles, “The Lesson of the Massacre at Fort William Henry,”inibid.,115–38. 34.SusanFenimoreCooper,PapersandPicturesfromtheWritingsofJames FenimoreCooper(NewYork:W.A.Townsend,1861),129–30.SomeofhissourceswereCharlevoix,Penn,Smith,LewisandClark,Colden,andLang.Hefound Chateaubriand’sAtalaanimaginarybore(130). 35.Cooper,LastoftheMohicans,249. 36.Ibid.,303–5. 37.SeeCassandraJackson,BarriersbetweenUs:InterracialSexinNineteenthCenturyAmericanLiterature(Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,2004). 38.Balderston,notesandtreatment,7March1935;seealsoBarkerandSabin,TheLastingoftheMohicans,62–73. 39.BalderstonwasoncetheLondoncorrespondentfortheNewYorkWorld, thenasuccessfulplaywright. 40.Balderston,LastoftheMohicans,firstscreencontinuity,22March1935, EdwardSmallCollection,USC. 41.Ibid.Recenthistoricalinterpretationsofthereactiontothemassacreat FortWilliamHenryalsoemphasizeitsimpactinforgingAmericanandBritish unityduringtheFrenchandIndianWar.SeeFredAnderson,TheCrucibleof War:TheSevenYears’WarandtheFateofEmpireinBritishNorthAmerica(New York:AlfredA.Knopf,2000). 42.Dunnelatercomplainedthatanunnamedscriptpolisher(actuallyPaul PerezandDanielMoore)hadbeenhiredbythestudioatthelastminute,removing much of the “authentic” historical background and rendering it a “pallid ghost”ofitsoriginalself.PhilipDunne,TakeTwo:ALifeinMoviesandPolitics (NewYork:McGraw-Hill,1980),35. 43. See Mary Duncan Carter, “Film Research Libraries,” Library Journal, 15May1939,404–7,whichgivesahistoryofthedevelopmentoftheresearch library.In1936WarnerBrotherswasintheprocessofbuildingaseparatefacilityforitsresearchmaterialsandhiringastafftotendtothem.Bytheendofthe
384 NotestoPages102–111
decade,itwouldhaveacardcatalogandasetofstacksasextensiveasthoseof anycitylibrary. 44. Lambert, Last of the Mohicans, research notes, October 1935, Edward SmallCollection,USC. 45.Carter,“FilmResearchLibraries”;FrancesCaryRichardson,“Previousto Previews,”WilsonBulletinforLibrarians12,no.9(May1939):589–92. 46.HelenHuntJackson,ACenturyofDishonor(NewYork:Harper,1881). 47.SeeA.C.Vroman’sintroductiontoHelenHuntJackson’sRamona(Boston:Little,Brown,1913). 48. C. C. Davis, The True Story of Ramona (New York: Dodge Publishing Company,1914),15.SeealsoA.C.VromanandT.F.Barnes,TheGenesisofthe StoryofRamona(LosAngeles:PressofKingsley-Barnes&Neuner,1899). 49.Davis,TrueStoryofRamona,33–42. 50.ScholarsaredividedastowhetherRamona’smixedstatustrulyaffected readers’perceptionsofthenovelandnineteenth-centuryCaliforniahistory.See David Fine, Los Angeles: A City in Fiction (Albuquerque: University of New MexicoPress,2000);DydiaDeLyser,RamonaMemories:TourismandtheShapingofSouthernCalifornia(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2005). 51.Ibid.,88. 52.GeorgeBancroft,HistoryoftheUnitedStates,fromtheDiscoveryofthe AmericanContinent(Boston:Little,Brown,1834–1875). 53.Davis,TrueStoryofRamona,34. 54.Ramonapageantprogram,1936,13–14,HenryE.HuntingtonLibrary. 55.Ramona(1916),directedbyW.H.Clune,reviewedforFilmDaily,16 April1916,andRamona(1928)withDoloresDelRio,directedbyEdwinCareweforUnitedArtists,reviewed20May1928,bothsilent. 56. Trotti would be nominated for his original script, Young Mr. Lincoln, in1939andwouldwinforZanuck’s“lastgasp”atAmericanhistoricalcinema: Wilson(1944). 57.Trotti,Ramona,storyoutline,25April1935,TwentiethCentury–FoxCollection,USC. 58.Ibid.,1. 59.Ibid.,10. 60.TrottiandFox,Ramona,26June1935,1,TwentiethCentury–FoxCollection,USC. 61.Ramona,finalscript,6May1936,1,USC. 62.DarrylF.ZanucktoNeilMcCarthy,28April1936,inMemofromDarryl F.Zanuck,ed.RudyBehlmer(NewYork:GrovePress,1993),10. 63.Time,5October1936,28. 64. The Plainsman, story department notes, 12 September 1935, box 526, folder7,DeMilleCollection,BYU.Seealso“ListofBooksUsedinResearch,” undated,box526,folder6,163entries. 65.“ListofBooksUsedinResearch.” 66.Aftershooting,DeMillealteredthefinalphrasefromthefinalscript(20May 1936,AMPAS),changing“characterizesthisbreedofmen”tothecitedwording. 67.Box5,folder54,StuartLakePapers,HenryE.HuntingtonLibrary. 68.Box9,folder78,ibid.
NotestoPages111–116 385
69.StuartN.Lake,WyattEarp,FrontierMarshal(Boston:HoughtonMifflin, 1931),esp.33–44,48–56,87,89,117–18,192–93,212–13. 70.MaxHartAgency,WilliamS.GiltoLake,18December1930and22December1930,box4,folder28;CollierAgency’slistofcurrentproperties,1932, box2,folder27,LakePapers,HuntingtonLibrary. 71.JosephineEarptoLake,April1931,box3,folder36;MerrittHurlburdto Lake,21December1933,box10,folder86,ibid. 72.LaketoLamarTrotti,6June1933,andtoDudleyNichols,25June1933, box8,folder83;TrottitoLake,9June1933,andNicholstoLake,30June1933, box11,folder56,ibid. 73.JulianJohnsontoLake,24January1933,andNicholstoLake,1October 1933,ibid. 74.LettertoIraRichKent,5July1929,box7,folder9,suggeststhatthebook becalled“WyattEarp:Gunfighter.”KenthasLakechangeitto“FrontierMarshal;”Lakeagrees,23September1929.HarrisonLeusslerhadalreadysuggested thechangeinMarch(ibid.). 75.Box14,folder15,ibid. 76.LettertoFredBlack,20April1940,box5,folder79;lettertoRothCollier, 10October1936,box6,folder5;lettertoG.W.WicklandofWellsFargo,21 May1937,box9,folder35,ibid. 77.LettertoRuthCollier,18April1937,box6,folder5,ibid. 78.LetterfromLaketoJaneHardyofRobertThomasHardyAgency,25June 1935,box4,folder25,ibid. 79.LettertoLloyd,12August1937,box7,folder81,ibid. 80.LettertoWilliamLeBaron,7December1937,ibid. 81.Clippingfile,AMPAS. 82.LloydonWellsFargo,PonyExpressCourier,December1937. 83.Variety,8December1937,16. 84.HollywoodReporter,3December1937,3. 85.MotionPictureHerald,11December1937,40. 86. New York Times, 20 December 1937, 15:2. Paramount’s publicity machinewasmammoth,however,andmanagedtopushthefilminkeycitiesasThe Plainsman’ssuccessor.Inearly1938exhibitorswereveryhappywithattendance, andWellsFargohadnocompetitionuntilZanuck’sInOldChicagoblewevery filmoffthecharts(Variety,5January1938,13;12January1938,8–9).Thelatter filmlastedtwelveweeksattheAstorTheaterinNewYork. 87.FrancesTaylorPatterson,“TheAuthorandHollywood,”NorthAmerican Review244,no.1(autumn1937):77–89. 4.TheReturnofOurEpicAmerica,1938–1941 1.FrankS.Nugent,NewYorkTimes,3March1939,21;Nugent,“ASixty DayNote,”NewYorkTimes,12March1939,X5. 2.Boththesefilmsmadeuseofhistoricaldetailsandintertitles. 3.SomeofthebestknownamongtheFord-NugentcollaborationswereFort Apache(1948),SheWoreaYellowRibbon(1949),TheQuietMan(1952),and TheSearchers(1956).
386 NotestoPages116–119
4.AndréBazin,“TheEvolutionoftheWestern,”inWhatIsCinema?ed. andtrans.HughGray(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1972),2:149–57; NickBrowne,“TheSpectator-in-the-Text:TheRhetoricofStagecoach,”inFilm Theory and Criticism, 6th ed., ed. Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen (Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,2004),118–33;RichardAnobile,Stagecoach(NewYork: AvonBooks,1975);EdwardBuscombe,Stagecoach(London:BFI,1992),88;Tag Gallagher,JohnFord:TheManandHisFilms(Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia Press,1986),147;TinoBalio,GrandDesign:HollywoodasaModernBusiness Enterprise,1930–1939(NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1993);RichardSlotkin,GunfighterNation(Norman:UniversitiyofOklahomaPress,1998),303. 5.SeeJackNachbar,ed.,FocusontheWestern(EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:PrenticeHall,1974),andothertitlesinthebibliographicalnoteinch.3ofthatbook. FormoreonJohnFord’smythicWest,seeAndrewSarris,TheJohnFordMovie Mystery(Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1975);PeterBogdanovich,John Ford(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1978);LindsayAnderson,About John Ford (London: Plexus, 1981); Peter Stowell, John Ford (Boston: Twayne, 1986);Gallagher,JohnFord;Slotkin,GunfighterNation;WilliamDarby,John Ford’sWesterns(Jefferson,N.C.:McFarland,1996);andIanCameronandDouglasPye,eds.TheBookofWesterns(NewYork:Continuum,1996). 6.RudyBehlmer’scomparisonoftheErnestHaycoxshortstory,thescript, andthefilmignoresNichols’shistoricalperspectiveandtheconnectiontoearlier historical westerns: Behlmer, Behind the Scenes (Hollywood: Samuel French, 1990),104–18. 7.OnlyrecentlyhaveauthorsbeguntoexploreZanuck’sandNichols’sdominant roles in “Ford” films; see George Custen, Bio/Pics: How Hollywod Constructed Public History (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1992); TwentiethCentury’sFox:DarrylF.ZanuckandtheCultureofHollywood(New York:BasicBooks,1997);CharlesMaland“‘PoweredbyaFord’?DudleyNichols,Authorship,andCulturalEthosinStagecoach,”inJohnFord’sStagecoach, ed.BarryKeithGrant(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2003),48–81. 8.LeoRosten,Hollywood(NewYork:HBJ,1941),325–26. 9.GilbertSeldesinTheMoviesComefromAmerica,74,quotedinRosten, Hollywood,302. 10.ErnestHaycox,“StagetoLordsburg,”Collier’s,10April1937,reprintedin Stagecoach:AFilm(NewYork:SimonandSchuster,1971),5–18. 11. Edward Buscombe, Stagecoach (London: BFI, 1992), 14–15. See also PeterStanfield’sHollywood,Westernsandthe1930s:TheLostTrail(Exeter:UniversityofExeterPress,2001),whichclaimedthatthehistoricalwesternwentout ofcirculationfrom1932to1938. 12.SelznicktoMessrs.WhitneyandWharton,29June1937,inMemofrom DavidO.Selznick,ed.RudyBehlmer(NewYork:Viking,1972),116–17. 13.ThescriptisatYaleUniversity’sBeineckeLibrary(WAMss.S-1610,box 46,f.339).TheotherknowncopyisdepositedattheLillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity. 14.OnlyWarnerBrothers’studioarchivesretainanyrecordsoftheirproductionresearchbibliographies. 15. Paul Wellman, Death in the Desert: The Fifty Years War for the Great
NotestoPages119–126 387
Southwest (New York: Macmillan, 1935). See also Woodworth Clum, Apache Agent:TheStoryofJohnP.Clum(Boston:HoughtonMifflin,1936);FrankC. Lockwood,TheApacheIndians(NewYork:Macmilllan,1938). 16. Britton Davis, The Truth about Geronimo: Life with the Apache Scouts (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1929);AntonMazzanovich,TrailingGeronimo (Hollywood:A.Mazzanovich,1931).Mazzanovich’spopularbookhadbeenreissuedtwiceby1931,andsinceithadbeenpublishedintheauthor’sadopted home,Hollywood,itwascertainlyknowntoNichols.Mazzanovichhadmany friendsintheentertainmentindustry,someofwhomhethankedinhispreface forinspiringhimtowritethebook. 17.Mazzanovich,TrailingGeronimo,148. 18.Davis,TruthaboutGeronimo,xvi. 19.Ibid.,xvii. 20.Geronimo’sautobiographyastoldtoS.M.Barrett(NewYork:Duffield, 1906)wasnotcitedinensuingpopularhistoriesoftheSouthwestApachewars. 21.SeeRichardWhite,WesternHistory(Washington,D.C.:AmericanHistoricalAssociation,1997). 22. Dudley Nichols, Stagecoach, November 1939, John Ford Collection, Lilly Library, Indiana University. Nichols’s 1977 publication (“Stagecoach,” in TwentyBestFilmPlays,ed.DudleyNicholsandJohnGassner[NewYork:Garland,1977],995–1038)reads“untamedAmericanfrontier.”Atypographicalerrorinthelattertextrecordstheforeword’sdateas1855.Otherreferencesinthis version read 1885 and are in accord with the original studio copy of the final shootingscript,whichreferstoallStagecoachdatesas1885. 23. Dudley Nichols, Stagecoach, rough draft 10–23 October 1938, 1, Lilly Library,IndianaUniversity. 24.Ibid.,19. 25.Nichols,“Stagecoach,”1029. 26.Geronimo’smostfamousportraitwastakenbyA.FrankRandallin1886 andshowedhimkneelingandclutchingarifle.ReedandWallace’sseriesofphotographs,alsotakenin1886,werewidelycirculatedaspostcardsandsouvenirs. 27.NickBrowne,“TheSpectator-in-the-Text:TheRhetoricofStagecoach,” inFilmTheoryandCriticism,ed.LeoBraudyandMarshallCohen(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004),118–33. 28.Buscombe,Stagecoach,66–67. 29.Nichols,“Stagecoach,”1030. 30.BosleyCrowther,“JohnFordvs.Stagecoach,”NewYorkTimes,29January 1939;HollywoodReporter,3February1939,3;FilmDaily,15February1939,7; WelfordBeaton,HollywoodSpectator,18February1939,5–6;Life,27February 1939,31–35. 31.NicholstoFord,undatedletter,likelyMarch1939,JohnFordCollection, LillyLibrary. 32.Variety,8February1939,17;FilmDaily,15February1939,7. 33.Life,27February1939,31–35. 34.JohnHuston(Jezebel)andPrestonSturges(Sutter’sGold)wouldalsotake thisroute. 35.DudleyNichols,“FilmWriting,”TheatreArts(December1942):770–74,773.
388 NotestoPages127–135
36.JohnGassner,“TheScreenplayasLiterature,”inNicholsandGassner, TwentyBestFilmPlays,xxi. 37. According to Variety’s reports of key cities (8 February 1939, 10), Jesse Jamesplayedwellforseveralweeks;itsonlycompetitorinFebruarywasRKO’s GungaDin. 38.HelenGilmore,“TheBadMenAreComingBack,”Liberty,31December1938,20–21. 39.JesseJamestreatment,6May1937,TwentiethCentury–FoxCollection, USC. 40.JesseJamesJr.,JesseJames,MyFather,theFirstandOnlyTrueStoryof HisAdventuresEverWritten(Independence,Mo.:SentinelPrintingCo.,1899), 194. 41.T.J.Stiles,JesseJames(NewYork:Simon&Schuster,2002),211–25. 42.SiouxCityJournal,23July1873,citedinStiles,JesseJames,236. 43.JohnRosenfield,“JesseJamesHeroofEpicMelodrama,” DallasTexas News,22January1939;Time,23January1939;Nugent,NewYorkTimes,8January1939,IX,4:1,14January1939,13. 44.Zanuckconference,14May1937,TwentiethCentury–FoxCollection, USC. 45.Variety,11January1939,12;MotionPictureHerald,14January1939. 46.UnionPacific,scriptnotes,box540,folder1,CecilB.DeMilleCollection,BYU. 47. Letter from Lasky to DeMille, 21 February 1938, box 540, folder 10, ibid. 48.Communication,10July1938,box540,folder2,folder4,ibid. 49.PamelaFalkenberg,“Rewritingthe‘ClassicHollywoodCinema’:Textual Analysis,IronicDistance,andtheWesternintheCritiqueofCorporateCapitalism”(Ph.D.diss.,UniversityofIowa,1983),193–94. 50.Ibid.,200. 51.Variety,27April1939,3;NationalBoxOfficeDigest,8May1939,7,and 22May1939,5.SeealsoRobertS.Birchard,CecilB.DeMille’sHollywood(Lexington:UniversityPressofKentucky,2004),306. 52.LettertoDeMille,16May1939,andresponse,23May1939,box549, folder19,BYU. 53.BosleyCrowther,“DeMilleChecksFacts,”NewYorkTimes,7May1939, X,5. 54.Birchard,DeMille’sHollywood,293.ThePlainsmanwouldgrossover$2 milliondomestically. 55.MaryDuncanCarter,“FilmResearchLibraries,”LibraryJournal,15May 1939,406. 56.NewYorkHeraldTribune,6November1938. 57.Researchlog,9August1938,WarnerBrothersArchive,USC. 58.TheOklahomaKid,treatment,8July1938,ibid. 59.Buckner,temporaryscript,9September1938,andDuff,4October1938, ibid. 60.Memo,B.F.toCasey,2November1938,OklahomaKidstoryfile,ibid. 61.Memo,11July1938,2,storyfile,ibid.
NotestoPages135–142 389
62.TheOklahomaKid,script,9September1938,149,ibid. 63.Variety,15March1939,16. 64.HowardBarnes,NewYorkHeraldTribune,11March1939,8. 65.Variety,5April1939,2.BytheendofMay,Variety(31May1939,6)reportedthatDodgeCitywouldeasilyoutgross$2.5milliondomestically. 66.Memo,30March1938,DodgeCity,storyfile,WarnerBrothersArchive, USC. 67.Memo,25January1938,ibid. 68.Buckner,scripttreatment,30March1938,ibid. 69. Dodge City, scripts, 14 May 1938 and 27 September 1938, final script dated14October1938,ibid. 70.WallistoMcCord,storyfile,12February1940,ibid. 71.HowardBarnes(NewYorkHeraldTribune)andFrankNugent(NewYork Times)bothwroteaboutDodgeCityon8April1939;NugentreviewedVirginia CityinNewYorkTimes,23March1940,16. 72.WallistoCurtiz,storyfile,4December1939,WarnerBrothersArchive, USC. 73.Zanuckwantedtosubstituteamontageofnewspaperheadlinestoprepare thelargelyfictionalaccountofFrankJames’srevenge,butthefinalfilmincludes the clip. See treatment, 2 December 1939; note from Johnson, 4 December 1939; conference with Zanuck, 6 December 1939, 7; and shooting script, 23 February1940,TwentiethCentury–FoxCollection,USC. 74.VeraDika,RecycledCultureinContemporaryArtandFilm:TheUsesof Nostalgia(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2003). 75.DailyVariety,23May1941;HollywoodReporter,23May1941. 5.JezebelsandRebels,CavaliersandCompromise,1930–1939 1.SeeEdwinGranberry,review,NewYorkEveningSun,30June1936,and Mitchell’sresponse,letter,8July1930,inMargaretMitchell,MargaretMitchell’s“GonewiththeWind”Letters,1936–1949,ed.RichardHarwell(NewYork: Macmillan,1976),27–30;DonaldAdams,NewYorkTimesBookReview,5July 1930,andMitchell’sresponse,letter,9July1936,30–34. 2. Hershel Brickell, review, New York Evening Post, 30 June 1936, and Mitchell’sresponse,letter,7July1936,inMitchell’s“GWTW”Letters,19–21. 3.R.E.LeewonthePulitzerPrizeforbiographyin1935. 4.Mitchell’s“GWTW”Letters,77–78,104,289–91;DouglasSouthallFreeman,TheSouthtoPosterity(NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1939),introduction. 5.Freeman,TheSouthtoPosterity,201–2. 6.KateCummings,JournalofHospitalLifeintheConfederateArmyofthe TennesseefromtheBattleofShiloh(Louisville,Ky.,1866);JudithW.McGuire, Diary of a Southern Refugee during the War (Richmond, Va., 1889); Mrs. D. GiraudWright,ASouthernGirlin’61:TheWar-TimeMemoriesofaSoutherner’s Daughter(NewYork:Page,1905);ElizaFrancesAndrews,TheWar-TimeJournalofaGeorgiaGirl(NewYork:D.Appleton,1908);JournalofJuliaLeGrand, ed.KateMasonRowlandsandMrs.MorrisLeGrandCroxall(Richmond,Va.,
390 NotestoPages142–145
1911);SarahMorganDawson,AConfederateGirl’sDiary,ed.WarringtonDawson (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1913); Women of the South in War Times, comp.MatthewPageAndrews(Baltimore:Norman,Remington,1920);TheDiary of Susan Bradford through Some Eventful Years (Macon, Ga., 1926); and MaryChesnut,DiaryfromDixie,ed.IsabellaD.MartinandMyrtaLockettAvary (NewYork:PeterSmith,1929). 7.Freeman,TheSouthtoPosterity,preface,xi. 8.MalcolmCowley,“GoingwiththeWind,”NewRepublic,16September 1936,reprintedinbothMitchell’s“GWTW”Letters,66,andDardenAsburyPyron,ed.,Recasting:GonewiththeWindinAmericanCulture(Miami:University PressesofFlorida,1983).BernardDeVotoalsoattackedMitchell,buthiscondemnationofher“sentimentalromance”wasvirulentlymisogynist;see“Fiction FightstheCivilWar,”SaturdayReview,18December1937,16. 9.DardenAsburyPyron,“TheInnerWarofSouthernHistory,”inPyron, Recasting,185–201,ix,2;AnneJones,“‘TheBadLittleGirlintheGoodOld Days’:Sex,Gender,andtheSouthernSocialOrder,”inibid.,105–15.Elizabeth Young,DisarmingtheNation(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1999),also notesthatalthoughMitchell’snovelisundoubtedlyracist,itsromancecontains unstableracialconflictsthat“darken”RhettandtransformScarlettintoamasculinebelle.YetYoungclaimsthattheseracialcomplexitiesareunconsciouson Mitchell’spart.SeealsoDianeRoberts,TheMythofAuntJemima:RepresentationsofRaceandRegion(London:Routledge,1994),171–81. 10.GeraldWood,“FromTheClansmanandTheBirthofaNationtoGone withtheWind:TheLossofAmericanInnocence,”inPyron,Recasting,123–36; and especially Kenneth O’Brien, “Race, Romance, and the Southern Literary Tradition,”inibid.,153–66. 11.Young,DisarmingtheNation,236–73;CatherineClinton,TaraRevisited: Women,War,andthePlantationLegend(NewYork:Abbeville,1995). 12.TaraMcPherson,ReconstructingDixie:Race,Gender,andNostalgiain theImaginedSouth(Durham,N.C.:DukeUniversityPress,2003),54. 13. Sarah Gardner, Blood and Irony: Southern White Women’s Narratives oftheCivilWar,1861–1937(ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress, 2004). 14.MargaretMitchell,GonewiththeWind(NewYork:Macmillan,1936),58. 15.Ibid.,172. 16.Ibid.,210–12,233,279,295. 17. Drew Gilpin Faust, Mothers of Invention: Women of the Slaveholding SouthintheAmericanCivilWar(NewYork:Vintage,1996);Gardner,Bloodand Irony,235. 18. Young, letter to Mitchell, 14 September 1936, in Stark Young: A Life in the Arts, Letters, 1900–1962, ed. John Pilkington (Baton Rouge: Louisiana StateUniversityPress,1975),707–9;MitchelltoYoung,29September1936,in Mitchell’s“GWTW”Letters,65–67. 19.HenrySteeleCommager,NewYorkHeraldTribuneBooks,5July1936,1–2. 20.Pyron,Recasting,204–5. 21.Mitchell,lettertoHaroldLatham(Macmillan),1June1936,inMitchell’s “GWTW”Letters,9–12.
NotestoPages145–151 391
22.Mitchell,lettertoMrs.JuliaHarris,28April1936,ibid.,2–3,5. 23.SeeMitchell’s“GWTW”Letters,especiallyherletterstoHarryStillwell Edwards,18June1936,13–15;toJuliaCollierHarris,8July1936,26–27;andto StephenV.Benét,9July1936,36. 24.Mitchell,lettertoAdams,9July1936,ibid.,31. 25. J. G. Randall, Civil War and Reconstruction (Boston: D. C. Heath, 1937). 26. Eliza Frances Andrews, The War-Time Journal of a Georgia Girl (New York:D.Appleton,1908),12–13. 27.Mitchell,lettertoJuliaPeterkin,inMitchell’s“GWTW”Letters,41. 28.Mitchell,GonewiththeWind,479. 29. Mitchell, letter to K. T. Lowe of Time, 29 August 1936, in Mitchell’s “GWTW”Letters,55–56. 30.Astimepasses,fewerhistoriesmentionthisepisode.Itisnomyth.Sherman’s aide Henry Hitchcock gleefully recounted the Yankee pillaging, but he leftthisout.GeneralW.P.Howard’sofficialreporttoGovernorJosephBrown, 7December1864,recountsthehorrorsofthecemetery(Archives,Universityof GeorgiaatAtlanta). 31.HenryHitchcock,MarchingwithSherman,PassagesfromtheLettersand Campaign Diaries of Henry Hitchcock, November 1864–May 1865, ed. M. A. DeWolfeHowe(NewHaven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress,1927),53–75. 32.Randall,CivilWarandReconstruction,558–64. 33.Faust,MothersofInvention. 34.Gardner,BloodandIrony,2–6. 35.FrancisButlerSimkinsandJamesWelchPatton,TheWomenoftheConfederacy(Richmond,Va.:Garrett&Massie,1936),243,240–41,260. 36.Ibid.,260. 37.Mitchell,GonewiththeWind,439–40. 38.Faust,MothersofInvention,200;JosephT.Glatthaar,TheMarchtothe Sea and Beyond: Sherman’s Troops in the Savannah and Georgia Campaigns (NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress,1985),73–74. 39.Mitchell,GonewiththeWind,745–46. 40.Chesnut,DiaryfromDixie,5March1865entry,359. 41.Selznick,lettertoSidneyHoward,6January1937,2,GWTWCollection, HarryRansomResearchCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin. 42. Mitchell, letter to Katharine Brown, 6 October 1936, in Mitchell’s “GWTW”Letters,71–73,71. 43.HowardwrotetoMitchellon18November1936askingforhelpwiththe “darkie”dialogueandofferingtoshowherwhathehadwritten.Mitchellreplied on 21 November that she had “made it very plain that I would have nothing whatsoevertodowiththepicture”(Mitchell’s“GWTW”Letters,92–94). 44.Ibid.,94. 45.AgnesBrandLeahyandEdwardE.ParamoreJr.,OnlytheBrave,ParamountProductionfiles,finalscript,9December1929,seq.A-2,releasedialogue, 5,6February1930,AMPAS. 46. Little Women, revised estimating script, 20 June 1933, 1, Lilly Library, IndianaUniversity.
392 NotestoPages152–163
47.SeeOperator13,finalcuttingcontinuity,6June1934,MGMScriptCollection,AMPAS. 48.Zanuck,notetoGriffith,8August1935,USC. 49.Ibid.,47–65. 50.SeeWalterBennMichaels’silluminatingdiscussionofthehistoricaldividebetweenPageandDixoninOurAmerica:Nativism,Modernism,andPluralism(Durham,N.C.:DukeUniversityPress,1995),16–23. 51. David Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the AmericanWorkingClass(NewYork:Verso,1991). 52.Mitchell,GonewiththeWind,722. 53. Robert Buckner, Jezebel, temporary script, 30 April 1937, 11, Warner BrothersArchive,USC. 54.Letter,8March1938,Jezebelproductionfiles,ibid. 55.Buckner,Jezebel,firstdraft,30April1937,ibid. 56.ForabasicproductionhistoryandcontextualizationofJezebelwithinDavis’scareer,seeThomasSchatz,“‘ATriumphofBitchery’:WarnerBros.,Bette Davis, and Jezebel,” in The Studio System, ed. Janet Staiger (New Brunswick, N.J.:RutgersUniversityPress,1995),74–92. 57.SeeWarnerBrothersresearch“bible”andresearchlog,WarnerBrothers Archive,USC. 58.Pressbook,4,ibid. 59.OwenDavis,Jezebel[1933],studiotypescript,storyfile,ibid. 60.Goulding,Jezebelproductionnotes,7July1937,3,ibid. 61. W. E. B. DuBois, Black Reconstruction (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1935);C.VannWoodward,TomWatson:AgrarianRebel(NewYork:Macmillan, 1938). 62.OliviadeHavilland,letterstotheauthor,2000–2001. 63.Mitchell,GonewiththeWind,426. 64.Lastingwelloveraminute,thedarkenedclose-uprivalsthelengthofthe finalshotofQueenChristina(1933). 65.AlthoughLindaWilliamsdescribedthissequenceinbothnovelandfilm, sheignoredthebiracialrebirthandconnectionstosouthernhistoryandinstead focusedonitasamomentwhenScarlettisrealignedwithherfather’simmigrant Irishphilosophy.SeeWilliams,PlayingtheRaceCard(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,2001),207. 66. Howard, “Preliminary Notes to a Screen Treatment of Gone with the Wind,” 14 December 1936, 1, David O. Selznick Papers, Harry Ransom ResearchCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin. 67. Howard, “Preliminary Notes to a Screen Treatment of Gone with the Wind,”14December1936,1,ibid. 68.Selznick,lettertoHoward,6January1937,5,ibid. 69.W.GordonRyantoWillHays,20July1939,PCAfiles,AMPAS. 70.Mitchell,GonewiththeWind,521;ClaudeG.Bowers,TheTragicEra: TheRevolutionafterLincoln(Cambridge,Mass.:HoughtonMifflin,1929);ArthurSchlesingerquotedinPeterNovick,ThatNobleDream:The“Objectivity Question”andtheAmericanHistoricalProfession(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1988),231.HistorianArthurSchlesingerwrotethatthisdefinitiveif
NotestoPages163–172 393
openlyracisthistorywasequallypopularwithacademicsandthepublicduring the1930sandrepresentedthedominantnationalviewoftheperiod. 71.Howard,outline,41,DavidO.SelznickPapers. 72.Selznick,letter,6January1937,6,7,ibid. 73.PhillisWheatley(YWCAofWashington,D.C.)toSelznick,10June1939, ibid.;ThomasCripps,“WindsofChange:GonewiththeWindandRacismasa NationalIssue,”inPyron,Recasting,137–52. 74. Howard, GWTW, final script, 16 January 1939, formerly Kay Brown’s, LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity. 75.RudyBehlmer,ed.,MemofromDavidO.Selznick,(NewYork:Viking, 1972),214. 76. Matthew Bernstein, “Selznick’s March: The Atlanta Premiere of Gone withtheWind,”AtlantaHistory43,no.2(summer1999):7–33. 77.SeeMitchell’slettertoCol.TelamonCuyler,17February1939,inSusan Myrick,WhiteColumnsinHollywood:ReportsfromGonewiththeWindSets (Macon,Ga.:MercerUniversityPress,1982),16. 6.TheLivesandDeathsofAbrahamLincoln,1930–1941 1. Cameron Rogers, story outline, 2, Twentieth Century–Fox Collection, USC. 2.JulianJohnson,memo,30January1939;Zanuck,31May1940conference;Zanuck,21June1940conference,ibid. 3.SeeMarkS.Reinhart,AbrahamLincolnonScreen:AFilmography,1903– 1998(Jefferson,N.C.:McFarland,1998). 4.JamesG.Randall,“HastheLincolnThemeBeenExhausted?”American HistoricalReview41,no.19(1936):270–94. 5.CompareRuggles’s16June1934scriptand25June1934script(yellow) tothe3November1934script(white),inwhichthescenefinallyappears(C-8 throughC-11),ParamountCollection,AMPAS.ScriptsbyWalterDeleonand HarlanThompson,adaptationbyHumphreyPearson. 6.ZanucktoRaymondGriffith,8August1935,LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity. 7.HollywoodReporter,2February1935,andDailyVariety,19November 1935. 8. Mordaunt Hall, New York Times, 9 August 1935, 21:2; Hollywood Reporter,13August1935,15;Variety,14August1935,15. 9.EdwinBurke,firstdraft,18January1935,55–58.Thesceneisbasically unchangedinthefinalcontinuityanddialogue,21June1935,52,USC. 10.ThorntonDelehanty,NewYorkEveningPost,21July1935,JanetGaynor scrapbook,GaynorCollection,BostonUniversity. 11.TomStempel,Screenwriter:TheLifeandTimesofNunnallyJohnson(New York:A.S.Barnes,1980),52–55. 12.SidneyCook,researchreport,9February1935,USC. 13.EldenC.Weckesser,HisNameWasMudd(Jefferson,N.C.:McFarland, 1991). 14.Cook,researchreport,1935,USC.
394 NotestoPages172–176
15. Zanuck and his staff first noticed the topic as a condensed version of George Allan England’s Isles of Romance (New York: D. Appleton-Century, 1929)in“HisNameWasMudd,”Reader’sDigest,August1934,74–76. 16.Firstdraftscreenplay,27April1935,USC. 17. Zanuck dictated this story himself, 14 May 1936, Macgowan Papers, UCLA.AllenRivkinadaptedit. 18.AlthoughGeorgeCusten’sconceptofZanuck’shistoricaldiscourseislimited and inflexible, Zanuck’s notes of the period reveal that on less important projects,hewaswillingtomake“streamlined”historicalpictures. 19.MacgowanwouldlaterbecomeaprominentfacultymemberinUCLA’s filmdepartment. 20.Zanuck,memotoHarris,21May1938,USC. 21. In particular, Trotti liked the sequence where Bell meets the emperor ofBrazilattheexpositionandlaterintroducesQueenVictoriatothethrillsof intimidatinghercabinetministersviaphone. 22.MemofromMacgowantoZanuck,2November1938,USC. 23.StraightwiretoJasonJoyandTrottifromZanuck,10November1938, box28,folder1,MacgowanPapers,UCLA.Unfortunately,RobertSherwood didnotagree,campaignedagainstYoungMr.LincolnfromthepagesofVariety,andeventriedtopreventZanuckfromusing“Lincoln”inthefilmtitle. “Sherwood’s ‘Lincoln’ Would Enjoin 20th-Fox’s Use of ‘Abe’ Title in Film,” Variety, 12 April 1939, 7; see also George Wasson memo to William Goetz, JulianJohnson,andMacgowan,8April1939,box35,folder,10,Macgowan Papers,UCLA. 24.HermanLissauer,“Bibliographyforpicture”(1938),LincolnintheWhite House,WarnerBrothersArchive,USC. 25.MerrillD.Peterson,LincolninAmericanMemory(NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress,1994),95.SeealsoTrotti’s“LincolnTrialStory,”dated17 January 1938, in which he compares a contemporary Georgia trial he coveredasareportertoLincoln’sowntrial,TwentiethCentury–FoxCollection, USC. 26. Ford’s intellectual and emotional investment in Lincoln is well documented. See Tag Gallagher, John Ford: the Man and His Films (Berkeley: UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1986),162n.Zanuck,writingtoFordaboutthe upcoming project, gloated that his screenwriter Lamar Trotti was “practically an authority on Lincoln,” 3 December 1938, John Ford Papers, Lilly Library, IndianaUniversity. 27.MarkE.Neely,“TheYoungLincoln:TwoFilms,”inPastImperfect:HistoryAccordingtotheMovies,ed.MarkC.Carnes(NewYork:HenryHolt,1995), 124–27;Peterson,LincolninAmericanMemory;Reinhart,AbrahamLincolnon Screen;GeorgeF.Custen,Bio/Pics:HowHollywoodConstructedPublicHistory (NewBrunswick,N.J.:RutgersUniversityPress,1992),135. 28.EditorsofCahiersducinéma,“JohnFord’sYoungMr.Lincoln”[1970], reprinted in Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology, ed. Philip Rosen, (New York: ColumbiaUniversityPress,1986),451. 29.KateCameron,“WildJamesBoysCometoLifeinFilm,”NewYorkDaily News,14January1939.
NotestoPages176–182 395
30.Zanuck,memotoJohnFord,3December1938,LillyLibrary,Indiana University. 31.RosemaryandStevenVincentBenét,ABookofAmericans(NewYork: Farrar&Reinhart,1933),65. 32.J.A.Place,“YoungMr.Lincoln,”WideAngle2,no.4(1978):28–35. 33.SeeTrotti,finalshootingscript,TheStoryofAlexanderGrahamBell,1, Lilly Library, Indiana University. Compare Trotti’s temporary script for Young Mr.Lincoln(13January1938)andthefinalshootingscript(27January1939)to therevisedfinalscript(27February1939). 34.SeeDudleyNichols,Stagecoach,temporaryscript,10–23October1938, andfinalshootingscript,14November1938,JohnFordPapers,LillyLibrary, IndianaUniversity. 35.FranklinB.Meade,HeroicStatuesinBronzeofAbrahamLincoln(Fort Wayne,Ind.:LincolnNationalLifeFoundation,1932). 36.Custen,Bio/Pics,51. 37.ThomasP.Reep,LincolnandNewSalem(Peterburg,Ill.:OldSalemLincolnLeague,1927);PaulAngle,“AbrahamLincoln:CircuitLawyer,”Lincoln CentennialAssociationPapers5(1928):19–44;PaulAngle,Lincoln,1854–1861 (Springfield,Ill.:AbrahamLincolnAssociation,1933). 38. See William H. Herndon and Jesse Weik, Herndon’s Life of Lincoln [1889],ed.PaulAngle(NewYork:Albert&CharlesBoni,1936),whereAngle addstotheauthors’originalrecollectionsofLincolnasalawyerwithnewevidenceprovidedbyLincoln’sformerlawpartner,StephenT.Logan(209).For moreonHerndon’sinfluenceonLincolnscholarship,seeDavidDonald,Lincoln’sHerndon(NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,1948). 39.LamarTrotti,temporaryscript,13January1939,finalshootingscript,27 January1939,revisedfinalscript,27February1939;HowardEstabrook,adaptation,“TheYoungLincoln,”22July1935. 40.DavidDonald,“TheFolkloreLincoln,”inLincolnReconsidered:Essays ontheCivilWarEra(NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,1956),149. 41.Fonda’sownhigh,thinvoicesupposedlyresembledLincoln’s;hedidnot possesstheresonantvoiceofatraditionalorator. 42.HerndonandWeik,LifeofLincoln,86. 43.Ibid.,331–32. 44.Donald,Lincoln’sHerndon,371–73. 45.RoyBasler’sTheLincolnLegend(Boston:HoughtonMifflin,1935)and LloydLewis’sMythsafterLincoln[1929](NewYork:ReadersClub,1941)inauguratedthisquestion,butMerrillD.PetersoncitesJamesG.Randall’saddress atthefiftiethanniversarymeetingoftheAmericanHistoricalAssociationasthe momentwhenhistoriansseriouslybegantoseparateLincolnmythfromhistoricalfact;seePeterson,LincolninAmericanMemory,292. 46.CarlSandburg,AbrahamLincoln:ThePrairieYears(NewYork:Harcourt,Brace, 1926);AlbertJ.Beveridge,AbrahamLincoln(Boston:HoughtonMifflin,1928). 47.Peterson,LincolninAmericanMemory,276. 48.Beveridge,AbrahamLincoln,68,116,132,277. 49.EditorsofCahiers,“JohnFord’sYoungMr.Lincoln,”453,456–57. 50.DavidDonald,Lincoln(NewYork:Simon&Schuster,1995),165–66.
396 NotestoPages182–190
51.Lewis,MythsafterLincoln,89;Basler,TheLincolnLegend,207–11. 52. Abraham Lincoln, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed. Roy Basler(NewBrunswick,N.J.:RutgersUniversityPress,1953),5:388. 53.Basler,TheLincolnLegend,203. 54.HowardEstabrook,“LincolnTrialStory,”7–8,TwentiethCentury–Fox Collection,USC. 55.WilliamE.Baringer,Lincoln’sRisetoPower(Boston:Little,Brown,1937), 330–37. 56.HerndonandWeik,LifeofLincoln,91. 57.AfteraseriesofconferenceswithZanuckonthestateofhisscript,Trotti changedthesceneofthemurderfromatravelingcircustoaneclecticseriesof IndependenceDay–IllinoisDaycelebrations.Comparepages26–36ofthefinal scriptandtherevisedfinalscript. 58.Angle,“AbrahamLincoln.” 59.Amongmany,FilmDaily,1June1939;HollywoodReporter,3June1939; Variety,3June1939;MotionPictureHerald,3June1939;Variety,7June1939. 60.TerryRamsaye,“YoungMr.Lincoln,”MotionPictureHerald,3June1939, 36.Ramsaye’sAMillionandOneNights(NewYork:Simon&Schuster,1926)is oneoftheearliestcomprehensivehistoriesoftheAmericanfilmindustry. 61.Trotti,YoungMr.Lincoln,revisedfinalscript,144–47,USC. 62.ConferencewithMr.Zanuck,23January1939,ontemporaryscriptof13 January1939;conferencewithMr.Zanuck,20February1939,onfinalscriptof 27January1939,3. 63. Memo from Darryl F. Zanuck to Ford, 22 March 1939, Lilly Library, IndianaUniversity. 64.EmanuelHertz,LincolnTalks:ABiographyinAnecdote(NewYork:Viking,1939). 65.ConferencewithMr.Zanuck,23January1939,ontemporaryscriptof13 January1939,6,USC. 66.InaninterviewforMelGussow’sDon’tSayYesuntilIFinishTalking:ABiographyofDarrylF.Zanuck(GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday,1971),Fordadmitted thatZanuckoftencuthispicturesatFox(162).Inanunpublishedinterviewwith DanFord(LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity),FordcreditedZanuckwithcreating theendingsequenceofshotsanddecidingontheirrelativeduration. 67.Ramsaye,“YoungMr.Lincoln,”36. 68.MotionPictureHerald,27May1939,insertbetween30and31. 69.SeeVariety,7June1939,7–10,and14June1939,7–9. 70.AbeLincolninIllinoisplayedonlytwoweeksatRadioCityandwasconsidered“weak,”“mediocre,”and“abigdisappointment”byexhibitorsinPhiladelphia,Brooklyn,andotherkeycities(Variety,28February1940,9;13March 1940,11). 71.Inadditiontothesteepcostofthescreenrights,RKOgaveBroadwayproducerMaxGordonacostlytwo-yearcontract(Variety,22March1939,2).See Neely,“TheYoungLincoln”;Reinhart,AbrahamLincolnonScreen;Peterson, LincolninAmericanMemory. 72.H.E.Barker,AbrahamLincoln:HisLifeinIllinois(NewYork:M.Barrows,1940).
NotestoPages190–201 397
73.A.M.R.Wright,TheDramaticLifeofAbrahamLincoln(NewYork:Grosset&Dunlap,1925),vii. 74.RobertE.Sherwood,AbeLincolninIllinois(NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1939),189–90. 75.Reinhart,AbrahamLincolnonScreen,27–28. 76.JosephI.BreentoMaxGordon,9July1939,andMaxGordontoJoseph I.Breen,18July1939,AbeLincolninIllinois,PCAfiles,AMPAS. 77.AlfredJones,Roosevelt’sImageBrokers(PortWashington,N.Y.:Kennikat Press,1974),43. 78.HerndonandWeik,LifeofLincoln,105–15,166–79. 79.Donald,Lincoln’sHerndon,353–57;Basler,TheLincolnLegend,149–60. 80.Sherwood,AbeLincolninIllinois,191. 81. E. van Rensselaer Wyatt, “Abe Lincoln in Illinois,” Catholic World 148 (December1938):340. 82. Sherwood would become one of Roosevelt’s speechwriters shortly after thecompletionofthefilmversionofhisplay.SeeJones,Roosevelt’sImageBrokers,3–4;Donald,“TheFolkloreLincoln.” 83.NewYorkTimes,30October1938,XI:3. 84.SeeFrankNugent,“RobertSherwoodonHistoricalAccuracy,”NewYork Times,25February1940,IX,4:2,andhisreview,23February1940,19:2. 85.By1942,thenumberofAmericanhistoricalfilmshaddroppedfromthe highsof1939(27),1940(32),and1941(19)toamere10films. 7.WarintheRoaringTwenties,1932–1939 1.RobertE.Burns,IAmaFugitivefromaGeorgiaChainGang(NewYork: Grosset&Dunlap,1932),foreword,5. 2.Ibid.,11. 3.Ibid.,35. 4.JohnE.O’Connor,ed.,IAmaFugitivefromaChainGang(Madison: WisconsinCenterforFilmandTheaterResearch,1981),12. 5.Burns,IAmaFugitive,14,93–94. 6.Ibid.,146. 7.Ibid.,79,196–97. 8.Ibid.,38–39. 9.RalphLewistoI.HowardLevinson,5February1938,legalfile,Warner BrothersArchive,USC,reprintedinRudyBehlmer,ed.,InsideWarnerBrothers (NewYork:Simon&Schuster,1985),6. 10.Undatedtemporaryscript,1–5,WarnerBrothersArchive,USC. 11.Zanuckmemo,7July1932,USC.Zanuckeventuallyletthecopsequence stand. 12.PaulDicksonandThomasB.Allen,TheBonusArmy:AnAmericanEpic (NewYork:Walker,2004). 13.Zanuckmemo,7July1932. 14.Zanuck’sconferencenotes,7July1932,WarnerBrothersArchive,USC. 15.Script,19July1932,1,ibid. 16.Seestoryfile,ibid.
398 NotestoPages201–210
17.SheridanGibney,depositionandletter,23March1938,ibid. 18.Letter,15April1932,ibid. 19. Thornton Delehanty’s New York Evening Post review mentions Burns’s autobiography. 20. Variety, 15 November 1932, 19; see press book, Wisconsin Center for FilmandTheaterResearch,andWiltonA.Barrett’sreviewinNationalBoardof Review,November1932. 21.Seerevisedfinalscript,8February1933,53,142–43,WarnerBrothersArchive,USC.Productionfilesnotethat“ForgottenMan”rehearsedandfinished 6–9February. 22.LuciusBeebe,HeraldTribune,8June1933,18.Thestudiokeptacopyof thisreview(productionfiles,WarnerBrothersArchive,USC). 23.EdwinSchallert,LosAngelesTimes,3June1933,7;MordauntHall,New YorkTimes,8June1933. 24.WilliamTroy,“TheUnregenerateArt,”Nation,19September1934,336, viewedthefilmas“pretentious”andturgid. 25. Hervey Allen, Toward the Flame (New York: George H. Doran, 1925), viii. 26.MichaelIsenberg,WaronFilm(London:AssociatedUniversityPresses, 1981),140–41. 27. Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity Question” and the AmericanHistoricalProfession(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1988), 111–32.SeeWarrenI.Cohen,TheAmericanRevisionists:LessonsofIntervention inWorldWarI(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1967). 28.JohnMauriceClark,TheCostsoftheWorldWartotheAmericanPeople (NewHaven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress,1931),285–88. 29. Newton Baker, Why We Went to War (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1936),4. 30.Ibid.,124–27. 31.SamuelTaylorMoore, AmericaandtheWorldWar(NewYork:Greenberg,1937),2,16–60.ForothercriticalcontemporaryperspectivesonAmerican waraimsandneutrality,seeCharlesC.Tansill,AmericaGoestoWar(Boston: Little, Brown, 1938), and Charles Seymour, American Neutrality, 1914–1917 (NewHaven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress,1935). 32. H. C. Peterson, Propaganda for War: The Campaign against American Neutrality, 1914–1917 (1939; reprint, Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press, 1968);Moore,AmericaandtheWorldWar,305–6. 33.SeeShopwornAngel,23Marchand17July1938scripts,AMPAS. 34.SeeRobertZieger,America’sGreatWar:WorldWarIandtheAmerican Experience(Lanham,Md.:Rowman&Littlefield,2000). 35.VarietypollsplacedherthirdafterTempleandDeannaDurbininthe latterhalfofthe1930s. 36.DonHerold,Life,November1935,50;Sid,Variety,4September1935, 14. 37.GingerRogers,Ginger:MyStory(NewYork:HarperCollins,1991),147. 38.Ibid.,150. 39.Ibid.,170–75.
NotestoPages211–221 399
40.GingerRogers,forewordtoIreneCastle,CastlesintheAir[1958](New York:DaCapo,1980),5–6. 41.RKOCollection,ProductionRecords,UCLAArtsLibrarySpecialCollections.Thestudiopaid$20,000. 42.IreneFooteCastle,MyHusband(NewYork:Scribner’s,1919). 43.TheStoryofVernonandIreneCastle,script,6October1937,RKOCollection,UCLAArtsLibrarySpecialCollections. 44.Ibid.,46. 45. The Story of Vernon and Irene Castle, treatment, 6 October 1937, 58, ibid. 46. The Story of Vernon and Irene Castle, revised final script, 8 November 1938,50,ibid. 47.Castle,CastlesintheAir,246. 48.SeeDorothyYost’sscript,10June1938,passim,RKOCollection,UCLA ArtsLibrarySpecialCollections. 49.TheStoryofVernonandIreneCastle,revisedoutline,15June1938,76, ibid. 50.Patria,script,8November1938,125,ibid. 51.FrankNugent,NewYorkTimes,31March1939,19:2. 52.ArleneCroce,TheFredAstaireandGingerRogersBook(NewYork:Outerbridge&Lazard,1972),155–57;EdwardGallafent,AstaireandRogers(New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2002),100. 53.Variety,5April1939,9,15.Inthesecondweek,itmadearemarkable $110,000(Variety,12April1939,9). 54.Hellingeroutline,n.d.,1–2,WarnerBrothersArchive,USC. 55.Lord,shorttreatment,n.d.,ibid. 56.TheRoaringTwenties,script,20January1939,1–2,ibid. 57. Philip Rosen, “Securing the Historical: Historiography and the ClassicalCinema,”inCinemaHistories,CinemaPractices,ed.PatriciaMellencamp and Philip Rosen (Frederick, Md.: University Publications of America, 1984), 17–34. 58.ThiswasmorefullyexpressedbyHumphreyBogart’sdoughboy–future gangster when he looks at his machine gun and says, “I think I’ll take it with me.” 59. Letter from Wallis to Hellinger, 16 August 1939, Warner Brothers Archive,USC. 60.WalterMacEwantoassociateproducerSamBischoff,6September1939, ibid. 61.WallistoLevinson,4October1939,ibid. 62.AmemotoWallisfromMacEwan,1August1939,mentionsthattheBritishcensors’objectionstocrimefilmsmightbestoppediftheyputoutadvance informationthatthefilm“isanhistoricalpictureinasense.” 63.FrankNugent,NewYorkTimes,11November1939,12. 64.Inanappropriateepitaphforthecycle,Jerry(Cagney)isshottodeathon thestepsofamassivepublicbuilding,justasRico(EdwardG.Robinson)had murderedoneofhisformergangmembersinLittleCaesar. 65.LeoMiskin,MorningTelegraph,11November1939,2.
400 NotestoPages225–235
8.TheLastoftheLongHunters,1938–1941 1.ConsultSergeantYork,researchfiles,WarnerBrothersArchive,USC. 2.NormanReillyRaine,outline,27July1939;revisedfinalscript,18September1939,ibid. 3.ZanucktoJackWarner,13July1939,ibid. 4.SeeStuartN.LakePapers,HenryE.HuntingtonLibrary,SanMarino, Calif. 5.RainetoLouEdelman,22November1939,memofile,WarnerBrothers Archive,USC. 6. Peter Novick, “Historians on the Home Front,” in That Noble Dream: The“ObjectivityQuestion”andtheAmericanHistoricalProfession(Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,1988),111–32. 7.MichaelT.Isenberg,WaronFilm(London:AssociatedUniversityPresses, 1981),94–96;RobertBrentToplin,HistorybyHollywood:TheUseandAbuseof theAmericanPast(Chicago:UniversityofIllinoisPress,1996),81–102;Michael E. Birdwell, Celluloid Soldiers: The Warner Bros. Campaign against Nazism (NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress,1999). 8.SamCowan,SergeantYorkandHisPeople(NewYork;Funk&Wagnalls, 1922);TomSkeyhill,SergeantYork:TheLastoftheLongHunters(Philadelphia: JohnC.Winston,1930);Cowan,6November1941toWB,legalfolder2;Skeyhill,legal1and2,11July1942,LaskytoFannyE.Holzmann,WarnerBrothers Archive,USC. 9. Nunnally Johnson, interviews with Dan Ford, John Ford Papers, Lilly Library,IndianaUniversity. 10.WallistoLasky,24April1941,WarnerBrothersArchive,USC. 11.Seestoryfilesforreleaseforms,ibid. 12.DixonWecter,TheHeroinAmerica(NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons, 1941),includeschaptersonbothBooneandYork. 13.Lettertotheeditorofanunknownpaper,14July1941,legalfile2,WarnerBrothersArchive,USC. 14.NewYorkTimes,3July1941,15:3;LosAngelesTimes,19September1941, 13;Variety,2July1941,12. 15. Isenberg, War on Film, 94–96; Toplin, History by Hollywood, 81–102; Birdwell,CelluloidSoldiers. 16.Pressbook,“ThePrivateLifeofaMotionPicture,”n.d.,WarnerBrothers Archive,USC. 17. Jean-Luc Comolli and Jean Narboni, “Cinema/Ideology/Criticism” [1971],reprintedinFilmTheoryandCriticism,6thed.,ed.LeoBraudyandMarshallCohen(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004),752–59. 18.Birdwell,CelluloidSoldiers,129. 19.ToddMcCarthy,HowardHawks(NewYork:GrovePress,1997),315. 20.HealsowontheNewYorkFilmCritics’Award.SeeCrowther’sreview, NewYorkTimes,3July1941,15:3. 21.JackAlicoate,ed.,The1942“FilmDaily”YearBookofMotionPictures (FilmDaily,1941);Variety,variousissues;Birdwell,CelluloidSoliders. 22.Seeappendixes. 23.Isenberg,WaronFilm,95.
NotestoPages236–243 401
24.Wecter,TheHeroinAmerica,409. 25.SamuelTaylorMoore, AmericaandtheWorldWar(NewYork:Greenberg,1937),259. 26.Ibid.,65.WithYorkasaprecedentandaGermanAmericanasthemost famousgeneralofWorldWarII,Rickenbacker’sbiographywasfilmedin1945 (CaptainEddie,TwentiethCentury–Fox). 27.DavidLee,SergeantYork:AnAmericanHero(Lexington:UniversityPress ofKentucky,1985),53;Skeyhill,SergeantYork:LastoftheLongHunters,221– 22. 28.GeorgePatullo,“TheSecondElderGivesBattle,”SaturdayEveningPost, 26April1919,3–4,71–74. 29.TomSkeyhill,SergeantYork:HisOwnLifeStoryandWarDiary(Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Doran, 1928); Hervey Allen, Toward the Flame (New York:GeorgeH.Doran,1925). 30.Skeyhill,SergeantYork:HisOwnLifeStory,vix,xi. 31.T.J.JacksonLears,NoPlaceofGrace:AntimodernismandtheTransformationofAmericanCulture,1880–1920(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress, 1981). 32.Skeyhill,SergeantYork:LastoftheLongHunters. 33.Ibid.,17. 34.Ibid.,62,88. 35.Ibid.,196,240. 36. Harry Chandlee, Sergeant York, temporary script, September 1940, 1, WarnerBrothersArchive. 37.Isenberg,WaronFilm,33;GeorgeF.Custen,Bio/Pics:HowHollywood Constructed Public History (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1992),introduction. 38. Kenneth Roberts, Northwest Passage (New York: Doubleday, Doran, 1938). 39.AccordingtothenumerousscriptsintheVidorandMGMCollectionsat USC,LaurenceStallings,TalbotJennings,ConradRichter,RobertE.Sherwood, FrancesMarion,JulesFurthman,NoelLangley,BrunoFrank,JackSinger,SidneyHoward,JaneMurfin,RichardSchayer,ElizabethHill,andKingVidorall producedtreatmentsandvariationsonthescript. 40.SeeUSCscriptfiles,KingVidorCollection,whichareallaboutadaptation. 41.RudyBehlmer,“TotheWildernessforNorthwestPassage,”AmericanCinematographer68,no.11(November1987):38–47. 42.SeeHowardStricklandCollection,NorthwestPassageProductionCosts ($2.67million),AMPAS.SeeVarietyforexhibitors’reports:28February1940, 9–11;6March1940,9–11;13March1940,9;20March1940,12). 43.WalterD.Edmonds,DrumsalongtheMohawk(Boston:Little,Brown, 1936). 44.TheonlycopyofFaulkner’sscript,dated3July1937,hasnotextforewordorinserts;itisinfolderHM58704,LevienPapers,HenryE.Huntington Library. 45.DrumsalongtheMohawk,script,2December1938,TwentiethCentury– FoxCollection,USC.
402 NotestoPages244–254
46.Ibid.,5. 47.Script,firstdraft(withZanuck’snotesontitlepage),LillyLibrary,Indiana University. 48.Ibid.,84. 49.CopyofwirefromZanuck,1939,box29,SonyaLevienPapers,HuntingtonLibrary. 50.Edmonds,DrumsalongtheMohawk,vii. 51.Ibid.,305–6,430–32,487–91,585.ForanassessmentofEdmonds’sapproachtohistoricalfiction,seeRobertM.Gay,“TheHistoricalNovel:Walter D.Edmonds,”AtlanticMonthly165(May1940):656,andArthurB.Tourtellot, “HistoryandtheHistoricalNovelist,”SaturdayReviewofLiterature22(20August1940):3. 52. Conference notes, 15 April 1939, Twentieth Century–Fox Collection, USC. 53.JohnE.O’Connor,“AReaffirmationofAmericanIdeals,”inAmerican History/AmericanFilm,ed.JohnE.O’ConnorandMartinJackson(NewYork: Ungar,1979),97–119;RobinWood,“DrumsalongtheMohawk,”inTheBook ofWesterns,ed.IanCameronandDouglasPye(NewYork:Continuum,1996), 174–80. 54.Variety,8November1939,14. 55.See,forinstance,HollywoodReporter,2November1939. 56.O’Connor,“ReaffirmationofAmericanIdeals,”115,119. 57.NorthwestPassage,cuttingcontinuity,24January1940,VidorCollection, USC. 58.NotefromDarrylZanucktoKennethMacgowanandWilliamKoenig,3 July1940,box29,folder3,MacgowanPapers,UCLASpecialCollections. 59.DarrylF.ZanucktoSidneyKent,15July1940,box29,folder3,MacgowanPapers,UCLASpecialCollections. 60.In1939and1940,Zanuckeasilyoutdistancedhiscolleagues,withnine productionsperyear.However,TwentiethCentury–Fox’spercentagechangein netearningsdeclinedby42.8percent(versusMGM-Loew’sdeclineofonly3.8 percent from the 1938 season). See Leo Rosten, Hollywood (New York: HBJ, 1941),376,377. 61.FrankNugent,“TheFighting69th,”NewYorkTimes,27January1940, 9:2. 62.Rosten,Hollywood,248. 9.StarsBornandLost,1932–1937 1.ForanassessmentofthecaseanditseffectonBow’scareer,seeDavid Stenn,ClaraBow:Runnin’Wild(NewYork:Doubleday,1988),209–34. 2.TeletypetoRKOinNewYork,4March1932,inMemofromDavidO. Selznick,ed.RudyBehlmer(NewYork:VikingPress,1972),45. 3.SeeSelznick’scommentsonHowardEstabrook’sscripts,TheConquerors, storyfile,RKOCollection,UCLAArtsLibrarySpecialCollections. 4.AlthoughtheconnectionsbetweenthecharacterNormanMaineandthe actorsJohnGilbert,JohnBarrymore,andJohnBowerswerepubliclynotedback
NotestoPages254–261 403
in1937andrestatedmorerecentlybyGeneD.Philips,“AStarIsBorn,”Filmsin Review40,nos.8–9(August–September1989):445,andDavidL.Smith,“John Bowers:ThisIstheRealNormanMaine,”FilmsoftheGoldenAge35(winter 2003–2004):68–77,criticshavebeensilentonSelznick’sdocumentedinterest intheseotherfilmmakers. 5.CriticalanalysesofHollywood’sfilmsaboutthefilmindustryhavenever examinedthesefilmsashistoricalviewsofHollywood;instead,theycharacterize the pre–Sunset Boulevard (1950) productions as naive, modern-day, “film-asmirror”clichésembeddedwiththemythicdiscoursesof“Cinderella.”SeePatrickD.Anderson,InItsOwnImage:TheCinematicVisionofHollywood(New York: Arno, 1978); James Robert Parish and Michael R. Pitts, Hollywood on Hollywood(Metuchen,N.J.:ScarecrowPress,1978);ChristoperAmes,Movies about the Movies: Hollywood Reflected (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky,1997). 6.RobertE.Sherwood,“Hollywood,”inTheBestMovingPicturesof1922– 1923(Boston:Small,Maynard,1923),78–85. 7.FrederickJamesSmithinPhotoplay,June1923,65. 8.FrankThompson,LostFilms:ImportantMoviesthatDisappeared(New York:Citadel,1996),104–13. 9.Sherwood,“Hollywood.” 10.WelfordBeaton,“ShowPeople,”FilmSpectator,5January1929,8. 11.Hollywoodscriptfiles,AMPAS;MordauntHall,NewYorkTimes,30July 1932,11:4. 12.Studiotypescript,3March1932,box195,RKOCollection,UCLAArts LibrarySpecialCollections. 13.TerryRamsaye,AMillionandOneNights(NewYork:Simon&Schuster, 1926);BenjaminHampton,AHistoryoftheMovies(NewYork:Covici-Friede, 1931). 14. Ben-Allah, Rudolph Valentino: A Dream of Desire (London: Robson, 1998);EmilyLeider,DarkLover:TheLifeandDeathofRudolphValentino(New York:Farrar,Straus&Giroux,2002). 15.ClaraBowastoldtoAdelaRogersSt.Johns,“MyLifeStory,”Photoplay (February–April1928). 16.Stenn,ClaraBow,122. 17. St. Johns, “The Truth about Hollywood,” 32, What Price Hollywood?, UCLAArtsLibrarySpecialCollections. 18.Photoplay,August1932,51.SeealsoVariety,19July1932,24. 19.Rush,Variety,16August1932,13. 20.BenjaminHampton,HistoryoftheAmericanFilmIndustry[1931](New York: Dover, 1970), 388–89, 405–7. Robert Allen and Douglas Gomery, Film History: Theory and Practice (New York: Random House, 1985), and Donald Crafton,TheTalkies:AmericanCinema’sTransitiontoSound(NewYork:Scribner’s,1997),wouldalsopointthisoutlater. 21.AnneEdwards,ARemarkableWoman:ABiographyofKatharineHepburn (NewYork:WilliamMorrow,1985),105–6. 22.RobertWagner,RobWagner’sScript,2September1933,9–10. 23.Bombshell,storyreport,25October1932,MGMScriptCollection,AMPAS.
404 NotestoPages262–272
24.Bombshell,treatments,23January1933,30January1933,MGMScript Collection,AMPAS. 25. Johnsrud, 30 January 1933, 2; Graham Baker and Gene Towne, treatment,8March1933,18.FamedHollywooddesignerMaxAdrianismentioned asacharacterinthescript. 26.MahinandFurthman,preliminaryscript,8July1933,AMPAS. 27.MahinandFurthman,script,25July1933,33.Flemingwasalsoassigned atonepointtodirectbutwasreplacedforunknownreasons. 28.Stromberg,“ProductionNotes,”25January–29June1933,MGMCollection,USC. 29.Stromberg,notes,7April1933. 30.Ibid.,8April1933. 31.Ibid,25May1933. 32.MaeWest,GoodnessHadNothingtoDowithIt(NewYork:McFadden, 1970). 33.CompareParamountscripts,whichoftencontainrewritesoftitlesornone atall,withthefinishedfilms. 34.GeorgeF.Custen,Bio/Pics:HowHollywoodConstructedPublicHistory (NewBrunswick,N.J.:RutgersUniversityPress,1992),119;LindaMizejewski, Ziegfeld Girl: Image and Icon in Culture and Cinema (Durham, N.C.: Duke UniversityPress,1999),145,155. 35. William Anthony McGuire, The Great Ziegfeld, script, 21 September 1935,1,HenryE.HuntingtonLibrary,SanMarino,Calif. 36.OtisFergusson,“TheGreatZiegfeld,”NewRepublic,13May1936,18. 37.Wagner,RobWagner’sScript,25April1936,12. 38.Mizejewski,ZiegfeldGirl,145. 39.HollywoodBoulevard,finalscript,A5-A7,box1095,UCLAArtsLibrary SpecialCollections. 40.SelznicktoBrown,28September1936,inBehlmer,MemofromSelznick,105. 41.SelznicktoDanielO’Shea,deposition,28June1938,box2499,DavidO. SelznickPapers,HarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin. 42.QuotedinRonaldHaver,DavidO.Selznick’sHollywood(NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,1980),192. 43.CarsonandWellman,18September1936,box1053,DavidO.Selznick Papers,HRC. 44.CarsonandWellman,“ItHappenedinHollywood,”22July1936,17,ibid. 45.Textsuperimpositions,12January1937,box513,DavidO.SelznickPapers,HRC. 46.Unmarkedpressclippings,JanetGaynorCollection,BostonUniversity. 47.Gilbertobituary,Variety,15January1936. 48.AsiftherewerenotenoughHollywoodironiesinthescript,Selznickhad OwenMooreplaythedirector,Casey.Moorewasanotoriousdrunkandthehasbeenex-husbandofMaryPickford.HewasbettersuitedtoplayMainethanone criticalofMaine’sthirst. 49.ReportbyCohen,Cole,Weiss&WhartonofNewYorkCity,particularly MemorandumB,box2500,DavidO.SelznickPapers,HRC. 50. A Star Is Born, final script, 16 October 1936, Robert Carson Papers,
NotestoPages272–282 405
Mugar Memorial Library, Boston University, has her look at Norman Maine’s slabbutnotthoseoftheotherrealstars.Theseshotswereobviouslyaddedlater atWellman’sorSelznick’srequest. 51.Seepressbook,LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity. 52.JeanHarlowdied7June1937;AStarIsBornpremiered20April1937at Grauman’sChineseTheatre. 53.AStarIsBorn,finalscript,42. 54.BothCooperandHarlowowedtheirearlyrecognitionasextrastoClara Bow. 55.Unmarkedpressclipping,Gaynorscrapbook,GaynorCollection,Boston University. 56.FrederickL.Collins,“WhereAreThoseSecondMaryPickfords?”20–21, 113–14,unmarkedpressclipping,ibid. 57.Haver,Selznick’sHollywood,191. 58. Unmarked review, Gaynor scrapbook, Gaynor Collection, Boston University. 59.AStarIsBorn,finalscript,110. 10.AHollywoodCavalcade,1939–1942 1.ThenumberofAmericanhistoricalfilmswouldpeakin1940atthirtytwo, but curiously, Twentieth Century–Fox’s production declined to nine and thensunktotwofilmsin1941,1942,and1943.WiththeexceptionofWilson (1944)andCaptainEddie(1945),Zanuck’shistoricaloutputconsistedofperiod musicals and biographies of musical figures. Although Warner Brothers maintainedadiverseproductionlinein1940and1941,bythemid-1940s,ittoohad movedintomusicalbiopics. 2.LewisJacobs,TheRiseoftheAmericanFilm(NewYork:Harcourt,Brace, 1939);MargaretFarrandThorp,AmericaattheMovies(NewHaven,Conn.:Yale UniversityPress,1939);WilliamC.DeMille,HollywoodSaga(NewYork:E.P. Dutton,1939). 3.CharlesAltman,“TowardsaHistoriographyofAmericanFilm,Cinema Journal16,no.2(1977):1–25;JohnBelton,“AmericanCinemaandFilmHistory,”inTheOxfordGuidetoFilmStudies,ed.JohnHillandPamelaChurch Gibson(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1998),227–37. 4.TerryRamsaye,AMillionandOneNights(NewYork:Simon&Schuster, 1926);BenjaminHampton,HistoryoftheAmericanFilmIndustryfromItsBeginningsto1931[1931](NewYork:Dover,1970). 5.In1939WilliamDeMillewarnedagainstthe“milliondollarfailures”that representproducers’attemptsatprestigeandateducatingincreasingly“general” audiences(HollywoodSaga,306). 6.Jacobs,RiseofAmericanFilm,531. 7. William J. Perlman, ed., The Movies on Trial (New York: Macmillan, 1936). 8.DeMille,HollywoodSaga,19. 9.Ibid.,27–28. 10.Ibid.,19.
406 NotestoPages282–289
11.FallingStar,revisedtreatmentbyRichardShermanandSonyaLevien,28 December1937,box4,folderHM55710,LevienPapers,HenryE.Huntington Library,SanMarino,Calif. 12.Conferencenotes,25January1937,USC. 13.See1938pressbook,LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity. 14.SeeZanuck’spenciledscriptnotes,3December1938,temporaryscript, LillyLibrary. 15.Conferenceonscript,16October1939,7–8,USC. 16.Firstdraftcontinuity,11October1939,ibid. 17.Conferencenotes,22December1939,ibid. 18.SeeParkerMorrell,LillianRussell:TheEraofPlush(NewYork:Random House,1940). 19.DixonWecter,TheHeroinAmerica(NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons, 1941). 20.Ibid.,477. 21.AlthoughSelznickhadattendedZanuck’spartieswhilethelatterwasstill at Warner Brothers (letter to Irene, 16 March 1933), he became increasingly jealousofZanuckaftertheintrepidformationofTwentiethCenturyproductions (lettertoL.B.Mayer,14June1933)andblamedMayerfor“thedissuasionfrom myplans”toformanindependentstudioofhisown.Zanuckhadbeatenhimto thepunch,anditrankled(RudyBehlmer,ed.,MemofromDavidO.Selznick [NewYork:Viking,1972],60,63–69). 22. The song was Berlin’s first big hit, perennially identified with his and singerAlJolson’scareers. 23.Storyconference,21October1938,1,USC. 24.DeMille,HollywoodSaga,131–32. 25.Curiously,Zanuck’sviewofHollywoodhistoryfromyouthtoadolescence (1914–1928)tomaturity(soundtopresent)mirroredWilliamDeMille’scharacterizationofthetrajectoryoffilmstyleandnarration.YetDeMille,beingprimarilyawriter,believedthatthesilentfilm’sdevelopmentcouldbemeasuredbythe lengthandcomplexityofitsintertitles(HollywoodSaga,250). 26.Conferencenotes,21October1938,USC. 27.Johnson,scriptmemotoZanuck,12December1938,ibid. 28. Johnson had been in the business for some years before Zanuck, and whenTerryRamsayededicatedhislandmarkAmericanfilmhistory,AMillion andOneNights,hethankedJulianJohnson. 29. George F. Custen, Twentieth Century’s Fox: Darryl F. Zanuck and the CultureofHollywood(NewYork:BasicBooks,1997),94–107. 30.MichaelWood,AmericaintheMovies(NewYork:Delta,1975);Garth Jowett,Film:TheDemocraticArt:ASocialHistoryoftheAmericanFilm(Boston: Little,Brown,1976);ThomasSchatz,HollywoodGenres:Formulas,Filmmaking, andtheStudioSystem(Philadelphia:TempleUniversityPress,1981);Gorham Kindem,ed.,TheAmericanFilmIndustry:TheBusinessofMotionPictures(Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress,1982);DouglasGomery,TheHollywoodStudioSystem(NewYork:St.MartinsPress,1986);EthanMordden,TheHollywood Studios(NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,1987);ThomasSchatz,TheGeniusofthe System(NewYork:Pantheon,1988).
NotestoPages290–297 407
31.DeMille,HollywoodSaga,23. 32.Johnson,memotoDarrylF.Zanuck,12December1938,2,USC. 33.Conferencememo,25November1938,3,ibid. 34.Conferencememo,15May1939,ibid. 35.Ibid. 36.Conferencememo,21October1938,ibid. 37.Conferenceonrevisedtreatment,20December1938,14–15,ibid. 38.Script,1April1939,151–52,ibid. 39.Ibid. 40.Ibid.WilliamDeMilleexperiencedasimilarepiphanywithtalkingpictures,butasherecalled,itwasnotZanuck’sJazzSingerthatcaughthisattention but Warner Brothers’ Glorious Betsy (1928), with Conrad Nagel and Dolores Costello(HollywoodSaga,268–70).Itmayhavebeencompetitivespite,butZanuckisnowhereinDeMille’spersonalhistoryofHollywood. 41.Hampton,HistoryoftheAmericanFilmIndustry,387. 42.DonaldCrafton,“TheJazzSinger’sReceptionintheMediaandBoxOffice,”inPostTheory,ed.DavidBordwellandNoelCarroll(Madison:University ofWisconsinPress,1996),460–81.Thefilmgrossedaveryimpressive$3million. 43.Conference,10November1938,1,12,USC. 44.Variety,4October1939,12. 45.HewouldlaterokaytheuseofoldfootagefromJesseJamestointroduce TheReturnofFrankJames(1940). 46. Curiously, although Lewis Jacobs honored The Birth of a Nation, The FourHorsemenoftheApocalypse,andTheTenCommandmentsaspeaksinfilm achievementinhis1939filmhistory,hebarelymentionedTheJazzSinger. 47.Variety,4October1939,12. 48.JackAlicoate,ed.,The1939“FilmDaily”YearBookofMotionPictures (FilmDaily,1940),122. 49.AlthoughnoresearchrecordsexistforHollywoodCavalcade,itislikelythat DeMille’sbookinspiredsomeofthestoryideasanddetails.Onemustalsobearin mindthatDeMilletoldthehistoryofonlyDeMilleproductions,whileZanuck, lackingspecificity,attemptedtonegotiatetheentireHollywoodspectrum. 50.Eachofthesefilmshadtextforewordsandintertitlesandwasreviewedas historicalmaterial. 51.DeMille,HollywoodSaga,18. 52. Original screenplay by Milton Sperling and Hilary Lynn, directed by studiohackWalterLang,withRayGriffithassistingZanuckinproduction.AlthoughnotsetinthepastandbynomeansaccordedtheprestigeofZanuck’s otherreleases,thefilmbeginswithanextendednewsmontageofthestageand screencareerofstarGarrick,“TheGreatProfile.” 53. Brooks Atkinson, quoted in Alma Power-Waters’s John Barrymore (New York:J.Messner,1941),260. 54.Power-Waters,JohnBarrymore,224–38. 55.ThefilmalsorepresentedthefirstmajorbiographyofBarrymoreandthe only one completed before his death in 1942 (with the exception of his 1926 autobiographyandPower-Waters’sJohnBarrymore).
408 NotestoPages298–307
56.AfterYankeeDoodleDandy,WarnerBrothersmadeonlyfivefilmssetin theAmericanpastfrom1942to1945:ShineOn,HarvestMoon(1944),aperiod musical;TheAdventuresofMarkTwain(1944);Mr.Skeffington(1944,starring Bette Davis); Roughly Speaking (1945); and Edna Ferber’s Saratoga Trunk. In contrast, its usual output had been five per year in 1939, 1940, and 1941. Of the wartime films, only Davis’s film and Saratoga Trunk received critical and box-officeattention,butreviewsandpublicityfocusedonstarperformances,not history. 57.LittleJohnnyJones’s“YankeeDoodleDandy,”1903. 58.JohnMcCabe,GeorgeM.Cohan:TheManWhoOwnedBroadway(GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday,1973),50. 59.Ibid.,51. 60.Macgowanpersistedthrough1937and1938,butseeespeciallyhislettersdated24May1937and29June1937,andfromNutetoMacgowan,25July 1937,Hudson’sBay(1940)correspondence,box29,folder3,MacgowanPapers, UCLASpecialCollections. 61. George M. Cohan, Twenty Years on Broadway (New York: Harper & Brothers,1925),6. 62.Ibid.,269. 63.Actors’Equityofferedonly$200,mentioningthatitwasthesumofCohan’smissedyearsofequitydues.OscarHammersteinreturnedthecheckwith astingingreply. 64.Cohannote,5August1941,WarnerBrothersArchive,USC. 65.Thebizarreheadline“StixNixHixPix,”panssmall-timeruralfilmsand endorsesthecomingofmajorprestigefilmssuchasYankeeDoodleDandy. 66.LettertoCohan,29August1941,WarnerBrothersArchive,USC. 67. Memo, Buckner to Wallis, 27 September 1941; Buckner to Wallis, 13 August1941,ibid. 68.Memo,WilliamCagneytoWallis,27August1941,ibid. 69.AllanNevins,TheGatewaytoHistory(NewYork:D.Appleton-Century, 1938). 70.Ibid.,320. 71.Finalscript,25November1941,88,ibid. 72.JamesCagney,CagneybyCagney(GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday,1976), 104. 73.EdwinSchallert,LosAngelesTimes,13August1942,12. 74.HollywoodReporter,1June1942. 75.McCabe,GeorgeM.Cohan,265–66. 76.GeorgeF.Custen,Bio/Pics:HowHollywoodConstructedPublicHistory (NewBrunswick,N.J.:RutgersUniversityPress,1992). Conclusion 1.Twenty-threefilmsappearedin1936(seeappendixes). 2.HayswasheadoftheMotionPictureProducersandDistributorsofAmericaandlatercededday-to-daycontroloftheProductionCodeAdministrationto JosephBreen.
NotestoPages307–316 409
3. Warner Brothers’ 1936 educational short won an Academy Award. In 1938itstwo-reelDeclarationofIndependencewonanotheraward,andin1939 SonsofLibertywoninthetwo-reelcategory. 4.ReportforWillHaysandJosephBreen,29January1937,PCACollection forShowBoatandSoRedtheRose,AMPAS. 5.FrankNugent,EdwinSchallert,andHowardBarnesconsidereditjuvenileentertainment;seereviewsinchapter4. 6.RudyBehlmer,“LandofLiberty,aConglomerate,”AmericanCinematographer72(March1991),34–40,34–35;seealsoA.W.Palmer,“CecilB.DeMille WritesAmerica’sHistoryforthe1939World’sFair,”FilmHistory5,no.1(March 1993):36–48. 7.AndréBazin,“TheEvolutionoftheLanguageofCinema,”inWhatIs Cinema?(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1967);Bazin,OrsonWelles:A CriticalView[1978](LosAngeles:AcrobatBooks,1991);AndrewSarris,TheAmericanCinema,DirectorsandDirections,1929–1968(NewYork:Dutton,1968);PeterWollen,“IntroductiontoCitizenKane,”FilmReader1(1975):9–15. 8.JamesT.Shotwell,ed.,TheEconomicandSocialHistoryoftheWorldWar [1922–1936](NewHaven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress,1936);StudiesinWorld Economy(NewYork:CarnegieEndowmentforInternationalPeace,1931);Modern and Contemporary European History, 1815–1922 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin,1922);TheHistoryofHistory[1922](NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress, 1939). 9.Seechapter7. 10.Shotwell,treatmentandinterpretivemonologue,box550,folder6,Cecil B.DeMilleCollection,BrighamYoungUniversity. 11. “Note Outline for Continuity—American Cavalcade,” 23 November 1938,box550,folder7,ibid. 12.Ibid. 13.“OutlineforContinuity—AmericanCavalcade,”30November1938,box 550,folder8,ibid. 14.TelegramtoHays,October1938,box551,folder9,ibid. 15.“OutlineforContinuity—AmericanCavalcade,”6,11,17,20,25January 1939,box550,folder3,ibid. 16.Ibid.,undated,folder4,11. 17.Ibid.,32. 18.Ibid.,37. 19.“TheCavalcadeofAmerica:SuggestedTreatmentsoftheGeneralSubject MatteroftheHighlightsofAmericanHistory,”undated,box550,folder5,ibid. 20.Outlinescript,23February1939,box550,folder9,ibid. 21.Temporaryscript,10April1939,A7–8,ibid. 22.Script,8May1939,ibid. 23.SubmittedbyFrancesS.Harmon,8May1939,ibid. 24.Director’sprologue,box550,folder15,ibid. 25.Releasecontinuity,box551,ibid. 26.Projectionroomnotes,21May1939,box551,folder5,ibid. 27.LouisGottschalktoSamuelMarx,18April1935,box1,folder,6,Louis R.GottschalkPapers,UniversityofChicago.
410 NotestoPages316–322
28. Allen W. Palmer, “Cecil B. DeMille Writes America’s History for the 1939World’sFair,”FilmHistory5,no.1(March1993):36–48,arguedwithout evidencethatLandofLibertywasHollywood’sfirstrelationshipwithahistorian andthatShotwellhelpedmakeAmericanhistory“morereal.” 29.LandofLibertyprogram,June1939,AMPAS. 30.FrankNugent,NewYorkTimes,16June1939,27:3;18June1939,IX, 3:1. 31.HenryFonda,Fonda:MyLife(NewYork:NewAmericanLibrary,1981). 32.GingerRogers,Ginger:MyStory(NewYork:HarperCollins,1991),124. 33.SeeespeciallyNugent’sreview,NewYorkTimes,23February1940,19:2. 34.Variety,3July1940,16. 35.Contractsigned21July1939;RobertL.Carringer,TheMakingofCitizen Kane(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1985),1,151. 36.Ibid.,2. 37.BettyLasky,RKO:TheBiggestLittleMajorofThemAll(EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall,1984),160–64. 38.ForthefalsestartsbeforeCitizenKane,seeCarringer,MakingofCitizen Kane,1–15. 39.PaulineKael,“RaisingKane”[1971],inRaisingKaneandOtherEssays (London:MarionBoyars,1996),159–266,200. 40. The Miracle Woman, like many other controversial historical features, didnotrecoupitscost.SeeFrankCapra,TheNameabovetheTitle(NewYork: Macmillan,1971),129–31. 41.WarnerBrothers’1939–1940programofpendingproductionsadvertised in Variety included “John Dillinger, Outlaw” (22 March 1939, 14). Time, 29 May 1939, 51, noted that Warner Brothers, the “pacemaker in gangster films andbiographies,isnowthespearheadofHollywood’sbiographicalthrust.”Time alsomentionedthatCagneywasduetostarinabiopicofJohnPaulJonesand Dillinger. 42.Kael,“RaisingKane,” 43.SeealsoLauraMulvey,CitizenKane(London:BFI,1992);MorrisDickstein,“TheLastFilmofthe1930s:NothingFailsLikeSuccess,”inPerspectives onCitizenKane,ed.RonaldGottesman(NewYork:G.K.Hall,1996),82–93. 44. Mulvey, Citizen Kane; Morris Beja, “‘A Really Great Man’: Myth and RealisminCitizenKane,”inPerspectivesonOrsonWelles,ed.MorrisBeja(New York:G.K.Hall,1995),253–59. 45.JamesNaremore,“On CitizenKane”[1978,1989],inGottesman, Perspectives on Citizen Kane, 268–94; David Bordwell, “Citizen Kane,” in Film Comment(summer1971):38–47;DudleyAndrew,“EchoesofArt:TheDistant SoundsofOrsonWelles,”inFilmintheAuraofArt(Princeton,N.J.:Princeton UniversityPress,1984),152–71. 46. W. A. Swanberg, Citizen Hearst (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1961). 47.Ibid.,60. 48.FerdinandLundberg,ImperialHearst(NewYork:Equinox,1936). 49.JamesCreelman,OntheGreatHighway(Boston:Lothrop,1901),177– 78.
NotestoPages322–329 411
50.Swanberg,CitizenHearst,120–30. 51.WilliamApplemanWilliams,TheTragedyofAmericanDiplomacy(1959; reprint,NewYork:W.W.Norton,1988),23.SeealsoPaulT.McCartney,Power andProgress:AmericanNationalIdentity,theWarof1898,andtheRiseofAmericanImperialism(BatonRouge:LouisianaStateUniversityPress,2006). 52.LouisPizzitola,HearstoverHollywood(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity Press,2002). 53.WillisJ.Abbot,WatchingtheWorldGoBy(Boston:Little,Brown,1933), 207–8. 54.Swanberg,CitizenHearst,51. 55.Carringer,MakingofCitizenKane,23.However,Carringeralsopointed outthatWelleshadquiteanimpactonlaterversionsofthescript. 56.MorrisDickstein(“LastFilmofthe1930s”)placedCitizenKanewithin amoregeneraltendencyofDepression-eraHollywoodcinematoconsiderfailed lives,thebizarrerich,andthenewspaperindustry,butheignoredthepresence ofacontemporaneoushistoricalcycleandKane’srelationshiptoit. 57.Swanberg,CitizenHearst,462. 58.SeeMankiewicz’s“TheAmerican,”16April1940,andcompareitwith thenextdraft,9May1940,andthe“final,”dated18June1940,OrsonWelles Collection,LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity. 59.“TheAmerican,”16April1940,58,box14,folder29,LillyLibrary. 60.Ibid.,35. 61.Ibid.,119–20. 62.Carringer,MakingofCitizenKane,21–23.Althoughmosthistoriansin thissituationlostinandoutofcourt,Lundberg’scaseresultedinahungjury, evidenceofaparticularlystrongcaseforplagiarism 63. Ferdinand Lundberg, Imperial Hearst, a Social Biography (New York: EquinoxCooperativePress,1936),74,36,53. 64.OliverCarlsonandErnestSutherlandBates,Hearst,LordofSanSimeon (NewYork:VikingPress,1936),xiv. 65.Swanberg,CitizenHearst,497. 66.OrsonWelles,“CitizenKaneIsNotAboutLouellaParson’sBoss,”Friday 2(14February1941):9. 67.BosleyCrowther,NewYorkTimes,2May1941,reprintedinGottesman, PerspectivesonCitizenKane,33–37. 68.OtisFergusson,NewRepublic,2June1941,760–61,reprintedinGottesman,PerspectivesonCitizenKane,41–43. 69.Crowther,NewYorkTimes,2May1941;GreggToland,“HowIBrokethe RulesinCitizenKane,”PopularPhotographyMagazine,June1941,55. 70.Welles,undatedstatement,possibly1941,LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity. 71.MorrisDicksteinclaimsthattheNewsontheMarchsequencereproduces thediscourseoftheHollywoodbiopic(“LastFilmofthe1930s,”87),butthese abbreviated,colorlessfragments,thoughusingsomeofthestructuraltricksofhistoricalprologues,donotcoincidewiththehumanizing,personalfilmnarratives ofeventhemostillustriousAmericanheroesandheroines. 72.GarrettStewart,BetweenFilmandScreen(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1999),164–76.
412 NotestoPages329–338
73.Inspiteofitsbrevity,thisisoneofthemostdiscussedsequencesinthe film. Bruce Kawin devoted an entire article to the library-boardinghouse sequence(“CitizenKane:TheBoardinghouseScene,”inGottesman,Perspectives onCitizenKane,465–503),buthisonlyinterestinthecamera’sencounterwith Thatcher’sscriptisavaguecomparisonbetweenthetextandwhatpurportstobe anobjectiveviewofevents(butisactuallyThatcher’ssubjectivepointofview) and the camera’s independent narration (466–67). Frank Tomasulo (“Narrate and Describe? Point of View and Narrative Voice in Citizen Kane’s Thatcher Sequence,” in ibid., 504–17) is in favor of multiple narration but ignores the text’srelationshiptohistoriography,itssignificantdifferencewiththeNewsonthe Marchsequence,andWelles’sprovisionforvisualhistoriography. 74.SeeDickstein,“TheLastFilmofthe1930s,”82–93. 75.SeeallKanescriptsfrom“TheAmerican”tothefinaldraft.Thefilmpreservessomethingofthisdisjunctioninnewsreel(beginningwithhisdeathand then1898,1919,andbacktohismarriagein1916),butitismoreevidentinthe structureoftheflashbacks. 76.Ironically,in1906,HearstpurchasedLincoln’sfarmsteadinSpringfield, Illinois(Swanberg,CitizenHearst,243). 77. Recall that on the lonely night he accidentally and disastrously meets Susan,heisonhiswaytoviewhismother’sthings,storedinaWestsidewarehouse. 78.ThesnowglobealsofunctionsasanartifactfromHollywood’spastand furtherestablishesWelles’sconnectiontoHollywoodcinemaratherthanhiscircumventionofit.Inseveraloftheindustry’stop1940releases(KittyFoyle[RKO] andAllThisandHeavenToo[WarnerBrothers]),snowglobesappearaschildlike emblemsthateventuallythwarttheillusionoftheprotagonists’“perfect”memoriesandHollywood’scomplete,linearnarratives.BothKittyFoyleandAllThis andHeavenToorelyontheproblemsofsubjectivenarration,history,personal loss,andacomplexuseofflashbacks. 79. Booth Tarkington, The Magnificent Ambersons (New York: Doubleday, 1918). 80.V.F.Perkins,TheMagnificentAmbersons(London:BFI,1999),1–14. 81.SeeAmbersonsscripts,WellesCollection,LillyLibrary. 82.AndréBazin,OrsonWelles:ACriticalView[1978](LosAngeles:Acrobat Books,1991),64–82. 83.Variety,1July1942,8. 84.Variety,4November1942,8. 85.Storyfile,box112,folder1,RKOCollection,UCLAArtsLibrarySpecial Collections. 86.Variety,1July1942,8. 87.Variety,3July1940,5,19;14August1940,16;and27November1940,7. 88.See,forexample,VarietyonKitCarson’sbigDenverpremiereandexploitationandVariety’smini-review,28August1940,16:“Justawestern...fullof action,shortonstory.” 89.Variety,21August1940,5.
SelectedBibliography
SelectedBibliography
ArchivalSources Bacon,Lloyd.Papers.MargaretHerrickLibrary,AcademyofMotionPictureArts andSciences,BeverlyHills,Calif. Benét,StephenVincent.Papers.UniversityArchives,YaleUniversity,NewHaven,Conn. Carson,Robert.Papers.MugarMemorialLibrary,UniversityArchives,Boston University. Cukor,George.Papers.MargaretHerrickLibrary,AcademyofMotionPicture ArtsandSciences,BeverlyHills,Calif. Curtiz,Michael.Papers.WarnerBrothersArchive,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia,LosAngeles. Davis,Bette.Papers.MugarMemorialLibrary,UniversityArchives,BostonUniversity. DeHavilland,Olivia.Letterstotheauthor,2000–2001. DeMille,CecilB.Papers.UniversityArchives,BrighamYoungUniversity,Provo, Utah. Dunne,Philip.Papers.UniversityArchives,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia, LosAngeles. Ford,John.Papers.LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington. Gaynor, Janet. Papers. Mugar Memorial Library, University Archives, Boston University. Gottschalk,LouisR.Papers.JosephRegensteinLibrary,UniversityofChicago. Hawks,Howard.Papers.UniversityArchives,BrighamYoungUniversity,Provo, Utah. Hepburn,Katharine.Papers.FormerlyFenwick,OldSaybrook,Conn.Courtesy ofSteveHansen,NewYork,N.Y. Howard,Sidney.Papers.UniversityArchives,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley. Howard,W.P.,General.OfficialReporttoGovernorJosephBrown,7December 1864.UniversityArchives,UniversityofGeorgia,Atlanta. Hunt,Marsha.Recordedinterviewswiththeauthor,2001. 413
414 SelectedBibliography
Johnson,Nunnally.Papers.MugarMemorialLibrary,UniversityArchives,BostonUniversity. King,Henry.Papers.MargaretHerrickLibrary,AcademyofMotionPictureArts andSciences,BeverlyHills,Calif. Lake,StuartN.Papers.HenryE.HuntingtonLibrary,SanMarino,Calif. LeRoy,Mervyn.Papers.UniversityArchives,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia, LosAngeles. Levien,Sonya.Papers.HenryE.HuntingtonLibrary,SanMarino,Calif. Macgowan,Kenneth.Papers.UniversityArchives,UCLA. Metro-Goldwyn-MayerStudios.Papers.MayerLibrary,AmericanFilmInstitute, LosAngeles. Motion Picture Production Code Administration. Files, 1934–1942. Margaret Herrick Library, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Beverly Hills,Calif. MotionPictureReviews.Collection.MargaretHerrickLibrary,AcademyofMotionPictureArtsandSciences,BeverlyHills,Calif. Nichols,Dudley.Papers.BeineckeLibrary,YaleUniversity,NewHaven,Conn. Nugent, Frank. Papers. Mugar Memorial Library, University Archives, Boston University. ParamountStudios.Papers.MargaretHerrickLibrary,AcademyofMotionPictureArtsandSciences,BeverlyHills,Calif. Quarberg,Lincoln.Papers.MargaretHerrickLibrary,AcademyofMotionPictureArtsandSciences,BeverlyHills,Calif. RKOStudios.ScriptCollection.UniversityArchives,UCLA;LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington. Rutherford,Ann.Interviewswiththeauthor,2001. Scripts.WesternAmericanaCollection,BeineckeLibrary,YaleUniversity,New Haven,Conn. Selznick,DavidO.Papers.HarryRansomResearchCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin. SelznickInternationalPictures.Papers.HarryRansomResearchCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin. Small,Edward.Papers.UniversityArchives,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia, LosAngeles. Strickland,Howard.Papers.MargaretHerrickLibrary,AcademyofMotionPictureArtsandSciences,BeverlyHills,Calif. Turner,FrederickJackson.Papers.HenryE.HuntingtonLibrary,SanMarino,Calif. Twentieth Century–Fox Studios. Papers. University Archives, University of SouthernCalifornia,LosAngeles;UniversityArchives,UCLA;LillyLibrary, IndianaUniversity,Bloomington. UnitedArtistsFilmCorporation.Papers.StateHistoricalSocietyofWisconsin, Madison; Margaret Herrick Library, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences,BeverlyHills,Calif. Universal Studios. Papers and Scripts. Margaret Herrick Library, Academy of MotionPictureArtsandSciences,BeverlyHills,Calif.;LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington. Warner,JackL.Papers.WarnerBrothersArchive,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia,LosAngeles.
SelectedBibliography 415
WarnerBrothersStudios.PapersandScripts.WarnerBrothersArchive,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia,LosAngeles. Welles,Orson.Papers.LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington. Zanuck,DarrylF.Papers.LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington. PrimarySources Abbot,WillisJ.WatchingtheWorldGoBy.Boston:Little,Brown,1933. Adams,JamesTruslow.America’sTragedy.NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1934. Alicoate, Jack, ed. The “Film Daily” Year Book of Motion Pictures. New York: FilmDaily,1922–1950. Allen,F.L.OnlyYesterday:AnInformalHistoryoftheNineteen-Twenties.New York:Harper&Brothers,1931. ––––––.SinceYesterday.NewYork:Harper&Brothers,1940. Almach,JohnC.“TheShibbolethoftheFrontier.”HistoricalOutlook16(May 1925):197–202. Andrews,ElizaFrances.TheWar-TimeJournalofaGeorgiaGirl.NewYork:D. Appleton,1908. Andrews,MatthewPage,ed.TheWomenoftheSouthinWarTimes.Baltimore: Norman,RemingtonCo.,1920. Angle, Paul. “Abraham Lincoln: Circuit Lawyer.” Lincoln Centennial AssociationPapers5(1928):19–44. ––––––.Lincoln,1854–1861,BeingtheDay-by-DayActivitiesofAbrahamLincolnfromJanuary1,1854toMarch4,1861.Springfield,Ill.:AbrahamLincolnAssociation,1933. ––––––. “Here I Have Lived”: A History of Lincoln’s Springfield, 1821–1865. Springfield,Ill.:AbrahamLincolnAssociation,1935. Bachellor,Irving.FatherAbraham.Indianapolis:Bobbs-Merrill,1925. Baker,Newton.WhyWeWenttoWar.NewYork:Harper&Brothers,1936. Baringer,WilliamE.Lincoln’sRisetoPower.Boston:Little,Brown,1937. Barker,H.E.AbrahamLincoln:HisLifeinIllinois.NewYork:M.Barrows,1940. Barnes,Howard.Selectedreviews.NewYorkHeraldTribune,1936–1941. Basler,RoyP.TheLincolnLegend.Boston:HoughtonMifflin,1935. Beard, Charles A. “The Frontier in American History.” New Republic 25 (16 February1921):349–50. ––––––.TheMythofRuggedAmericanIndividualism.NewYork:JohnDay,1932. ––––––.“HistoricalRelativism.”InTheVarietiesofHistory.EditedbyFritzStern. NewYork:Meridian,1956. Beard,CharlesA.,andMaryBeard.TheRiseofAmericanCivilization.NewYork: Macmillan,1927. Becker,Carl.“DetachmentandtheWritingofHistory.”AtlanticMonthly106 (October1910):524–36. ––––––.EverymanHisOwnHistorian:EssaysonHistoryandPolitics.NewYork: F.S.Crofts,1935. ––––––.“EverymanHisOwnHistorian.”AmericanHistoricalReview37(1932): 221–36.Reprint,ElPaso,Tex.:AcademicReprints,1960.
416 SelectedBibliography
Behlmer,Rudy,ed.MemofromDavidO.Selznick.NewYork:Viking,1972. ––––––.InsideWarnerBrothers.NewYork:Simon&Schuster,1985. ––––––.MemofromDarrylF.Zanuck:TheGoldenYearsatTwentiethCentury– Fox.NewYork:GrovePress,1993. Benét, Stephen V. Selected Letters. Edited by Charles Fenton. New Haven, Conn.:YaleUniversityPress,1960. Beveridge, Albert J. Abraham Lincoln. 2 vols. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1928. Bowers, Claude G. The Tragic Era: The Revolution after Lincoln. Cambridge, Mass.:HoughtonMifflin,1929. Boynton,PercyH.TheRediscoveryoftheFrontier.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1931. Branch,E.Douglas.Westward:TheRomanceoftheAmericanFrontier.NewYork: D.Appleton,1930. Brickell,Hershel.“GonewiththeWind.”NewYorkEveningPost,30June1936. Browder,Earl.LincolnandtheCommunists.NewYork:WorkersLibraryPublishers,1936. Buel,JamesW.TheBorderBandits:AnAuthenticandThrillingHistoryoftheNoted OutlawsJesseandFrankJames.Chicago:DonohueHenneberry,1893. Burke,Kenneth.AttitudestowardHistory[1937].Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1984. Burnett,W.R.LittleCaesar.London:Cape,1929. Burns,RobertE.IAmaFugitivefromaGeorgiaChainGang.NewYork:Grosset &Dunlap,1932. Burns,WalterNoble.TheSagaofBillytheKid.GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday,1925. ––––––.Tombstone:AnIlliadoftheSouthwest.GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday, Doran,1928. ––––––.TheOne-WayRide:TheRedTrailofChicagoGanglandfromProhibition toJakeLingle.GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday,Doran,1931. Capra,Frank.TheNameabovetheTitle:AnAutobiography.NewYork:Macmillan,1971. Carlson,Oliver,andErnestSutherlandBates.Hearst,LordofSanSimeon.New York:VikingPress,1936. Carnegie,Dale.LincolntheUnknown.NewYork:Century,1932. Carter,MaryDuncan.“FilmResearchLibraries.”LibraryJournal64(15May 1939):404–7. Castle,Irene.MyHusband.NewYork:Scribner’s,1919. ––––––.CastlesintheAir[1958].WithaforewordbyGingerRogers.NewYork: DaCapoPress,1980. Chesnut,MaryBoykin.DiaryfromDixie.EditedbyIsabellaD.MartinandMyrtaLockettAvary.NewYork:PeterSmith,1929. Churchill,Edward.Selectedreviews.Exhibitors’HeraldWorld,1928–1936. Clark,JohnMaurice.TheCostsoftheWorldWartotheAmericanPeople.New Haven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress,1931. Cohen,Henry,ed.ThePublicEnemy.Madison:WisconsinCenterforFilmand TheaterResearch,1981. Cohen,JohnS.,Jr.Selectedreviews.NewYorkSun,1930–1933.
SelectedBibliography 417
Commager, Henry Steele. “Gone with the Wind.” New York Herald Tribune Books,5July1936,1–2. Conant,A.J.“PersonalRecollectionsofAbrahamLincoln.”NewYorkTimes,4 December1888. Cooper,CourtneyRyley.AnnieOakley:WomanatArms.NewYork:Duffield,1927. ––––––.“TheStoryofWilliamFrederickCody.”ElksMagazine(May1927). Cooper,JamesFenimore.TheLastoftheMohicans:ANarrativeof1757.2vols. Philadelphia:Carey&Lea,1826.Reprint,NewYork:Penguin,1986. Cooper,SusanFenimore.PapersandPicturesfromtheWritingsofJamesFenimoreCooper.NewYork:W.A.Townsend,1861. Cowan,Sam.SergeantYorkandHisPeople.NewYork:Funk&Wagnalls,1922. Cowley,Malcolm.“GoingwiththeWind.”NewRepublic,16September1936, 161–62. Craven, Avery. The Repressible Conflict, 1830–61. University, La.: Louisiana StateUniversityPress,1939. ––––––.TheComingoftheCivilWar.NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1942. Creelman,James.OntheGreatHighway.Boston:Lothrop,1901. Crowther,Bosley.Selectedreviews.NewYorkTimes,1939–1942. Cummings, Kate. A Journal of Hospital Life. Louisville, Ky.: John P. Morgan, 1866. Davis,Britton.TheTruthaboutGeronimo:LifewiththeApacheScouts.Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,1929. Davis,CarlyleChanning.TheTrueStoryofRamona.NewYork:DodgePublishingCompany,1914. Dawson,SarahMorgan.AConfederateGirl’sDiary.EditedbyWarringtonDawson.NewYork:HoughtonMifflin,1913. Dedmon,Emmett.FabulousChicago.NewYork:RandomHouse,1933. Delehanty,Thornton.Selectedreviews.NewYorkEveningPost,1930–1936. DeMille, Cecil B. The Autobiography of Cecil B. DeMille. Edited by Donald Hayne.EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:Prentice-Hall,1959. DeMille,WilliamC.HollywoodSaga.NewYork:E.P.Dutton,1939. DeVoto,Bernard.“FootnoteontheWest.”Harper’s155(November1927):714–22. Dunne,Philip.TakeTwo:ALifeinMoviesandPolitics.NewYork:McGraw-Hill,1980. ––––––.“DarrylfromAtoZ.”AmericanFilm9,no.19(July–August,1984):47. Dunning, William A. “The Truth in History.” American Historical Review 19 (January1914):217–29. Edmonds,WalterD.DrumsalongtheMohawk.Boston:Little,Brown,1936. England,GeorgeAllan.IslesofRomance.NewYork:D.Appleton-Century,1929. ExcerptedinTheReader’sDigest,August1934,74–76. Estabrook,Howard.“ThisAmusementSchoolofOurs.”HollywoodReporter,8 May1931. Ferber,Edna.Cimarron.GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday,Doran,1930. ––––––.APeculiarTreasure.NewYork:Doubleday,Doran,1939. Fergusson,Otis.Selectedreviews.NewRepublic,1936–1941. FilmDaily.Selectedreviews,1931–1942. Fletcher,JohnGould.TheCrisisoftheFilm.Seattle:UniversityofWashington Chapbooks,1929.
418 SelectedBibliography
Fonda,Henry,withHowardTeichmann.Fonda:MyLife.NewYork:NewAmericanLibrary,1981. Freeman, Douglas Southall. R. E. Lee. 4 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,1934–1935. ––––––.TheSouthtoPosterity:AnIntroductiontotheWritingofConfederateHistory.NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1939. Freeman,Joseph.“BiographicalFilms.”TheaterArts25(December1941). Gilmore, Helen. “The Bad Men Are Coming Back.” Liberty (31 December 1938):20–21. Gish,Lillian,withAnnPinchot.LillianGish:TheMovies,Mr.GriffithandMe. EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:Prentice-Hall,1969. Gollumb,Joseph.“MeetingtheCrimeWave:AComparisonofMethods.”Nation112(January1921):82. Grattan,C.Hartley.WhyWeFought.NewYork:VanguardPress,1929. Grey,Zane.TheVanishingAmerican.NewYork:Grosset&Dunlap,1925. Griffith, D. W. The Rise and Fall of Free Speech in America [pamphlet]. Los Angeles,1916. Hacker,Louis.AmericanProblemsofToday:AHistoryoftheUnitedStatessince theWorldWar.NewYork:F.S.Crofts,1938. Hall,Mordaunt.Selectedreviews.NewYorkTimes,1923–1935. Hampton,BenjaminB.HistoryoftheAmericanFilmIndustryfromItsBeginnings to1931[1931].NewYork:Dover,1970. Haycox,Ernest.“StagetoLordsburg.”Collier’s,10April1937. ––––––.Troubleshooter.GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday,1937. Herndon,William,andJesseWeik.Herndon’sLifeofLincoln:TheHistoryand Personal Recollections of Abraham Lincoln [1889]. Edited by Paul Angle. NewYork:Albert&CharlesBoni,1936. Hertz,Emanuel,ed.TheHiddenLincoln.NewYork:VikingPress,1938. ––––––.LincolnTalks:ABiographyinAnecdote.NewYork:VikingPress,1939. Hitchcock, Henry. Marching with Sherman. Edited by M. A. DeWolfe Howe. NewHaven,Conn:YaleUniversityPress,1927. HollywoodReporter.Selectedreviews,1928–1942. Holmes,Fred.L.“MakingCriminalsoutofSoldiers.”Nation121(22July1925):114. Huettig,MaeD.TheEconomicControloftheMotionPictureIndustry.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1944. Isaacs,Edith,ed.“ArtistsoftheMovies.”TheatreArts23(June1939):424–28. Jackson,HelenHunt.ACenturyofDishonor.NewYork:Harper&Brothers,1881. ––––––.Ramona.Boston:RobertsBrothers,1884. ––––––.Ramona.WithanintroductionbyA.C.Vroman.Boston:Little,Brown, 1913. Jacobs,Lewis.TheRiseoftheAmericanFilm.NewYork:Harcourt,Brace,1939. James,Jesse,Jr.JesseJames,MyFather,TheFirstandOnlyTrueStoryoftheAdenturesEverWritten.Independence,Mo.:SentinelPrintingCo.,1899. Johnson,Alva.“TheWahooBoy.”NewYorker,10November1934,25. Johnston,WilliamA.“Writer’sGoldinHollywood.”Graphic,2May1931,172. Kauffmann,Stanley,andBruceHentsell,eds.AmericanFilmCriticism:Fromthe BeginningstoCitizenKane.NewYork:Liveright,1972.
SelectedBibliography 419
Kendrick, Benjamin Burks, and Alex Mathews Arnett. The South Looks at Its Past.ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,1935. Lake,Stuart.WyattEarp:FrontierMarshal.Boston:HoughtonMifflin,1931. Landesco, John. Organized Crime in Chicago [1929]. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress,1968. Leigh,FrancesButler.TenYearsonaGeorgiaPlantationsincetheWar[1875]. London:RichardBently&Son,1883. Lewis,Lloyd.MythsafterLincoln[1929].NewYork:PressoftheReadersClub, 1941. Life.Selectedreviews,1937–1941. Lincoln,Abraham.TheCollectedWorksofAbrahamLincoln,9vols.Editedby RoyP.Basler.NewBrunswick,N.J.:RutgersUniversityPress,1953. Lundberg,Ferdinand.ImperialHearst,aSocialBiography.NewYork:Equinox CooperativePress,1936. MacLeod,WilliamChristie.TheAmericanIndianFrontier.NewYork:AlfredA. Knopf,1928. Macgowan,Kenneth.BehindtheScreen:TheHistoryandTechniquesoftheMotionPicture.NewYork:DelacourtPress,1965. MargaretMitchellandHerNovel“GonewiththeWind.”NewYork:Macmillan, 1936. Marion,Frances.HowtoWriteandSellFilmStories.NewYork:Covici-Friede,1937. Massey,Raymond.AHundredDifferentLives.Boston:Little,Brown,1979. Mathews, John Joseph. Wah’Kon-Tah: The Osage and the White Man’s Road. Norman:UniversityofOklahomaPress,1932. ––––––.TheOsage:ChildrenoftheMiddleWaters.Norman:UniversityofOklahomaPress,1961. Mazzanovich,Anton.TrailingGeronimo.Hollywood:A.Mazzanovich,1931. McIntyre,O.O.“BadMan.”Cosmopolitan(February1931):52–53. McWilliams,Carey.TheNewRegionalisminAmericanLiterature.Seattle:UniversityofWashingtonBookStore,1930. ––––––. “Myths of the West.” North American Review 232 (November 1931): 424–32. Meade,FranklinB.HeroicStatuesinBronzeofAbrahamLincoln.FortWayne, Ind.:LincolnNationalLifeFoundation,1932. Meserve,FrederickHill,andCarlSandburg.ThePhotographsofAbrahamLincoln.NewYork:Harcourt,Brace,1944. Miller,Walter.TheRoadtoWar.NewYork:HoughtonMifflin,1935. Mitchell,Margaret.GonewiththeWind.NewYork:Macmillan,1936. ––––––.MargaretMitchell’s“GonewiththeWind”Letters,1936–1949.Editedby RichardHarwell.NewYork:Macmillan,1976. Mitgang,Herb,ed.TheLettersofCarlSandburg.NewYork:Harcourt,Brace& World,1968. Moore, Samuel Taylor. America and the World War. New York: Greenberg, 1937. MotionPictureNewsBlueBook.NewYork:MotionPictureNews,1928–1942. Motley,JohnLothrop.TheCausesoftheAmericanCivilWar.NewYork:D.Appleton,1861.
420 SelectedBibliography
Mudd,Nettie.TheLifeofDr.SamuelA.Mudd.NewYork:Neale,1906. Mumford,Lewis.TheGoldenDay.NewYork:Boni&Liveright,1926. Myrick,Susan.WhiteColumnsinHollywood:ReportsfromGonewiththeWind Sets.Macon,Ga.:MercerUniversityPress,1982. Naumburg,Nancy.WeMaketheMovies.NewYork:W.W.Norton,1937. Nevins,Allan.TheGatewaytoHistory.NewYork:D.Appleton-Century,1938. ––––––.“What’stheMatterwithHistory?”SaturdayReviewofLiterature19(4 February1939):3–4,16. ––––––.AllanNevinsonHistory.NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1975. Nichols,Dudley.“FilmWriting.”TheatreArts26(December1942):770–74. ––––––.“WritingandtheFilm.”TheatreArts27(October1943):591–602. ––––––.“Stagecoach.”InTwentyBestFilmPlays[1943].EditedbyDudleyNicholsandJohnGassner,995–1038.NewYork:Garland,1977. Nichols,Dudley,andJohnFord.Stagecoach:AFilmbyJohnFordandDudley Nichols.NewYork:Simon&Schuster,1971. Nugent,FrankS.Selectedreviews.NewYorkTimes,1936–1941. O’Connor,John,ed.IAmaFugitivefromaChainGang.Madison:Wisconsin CenterforFilmandTheaterResearch,1981. Pasley, Fred D. Al Capone: The Biography of a Self-made Man. Garden City, N.Y.:GardenCityPublishingCo.,1930. ––––––.MusclingIn.NewYork:IvesWashburn,1931. Patterson,FrancesTaylor.“TheAuthorandHollywood.”NorthAmericanReview 244,no.1(autumn1937):77–89. Patullo, George. “The Second Elder Gives Battle. Saturday Evening Post. 26 April1919,3–4,71–74. Paxson,FredericL.TheLastAmericanFrontier.NewYork:Macmillan,1910. ––––––.WhentheWestIsGone.NewYork:HenryHolt,1930. Perlman,WilliamJ.,ed.TheMoviesonTrial.NewYork:Macmillan,1936. Peterson,H.C.PropagandaforWar:TheCampaignagainstAmericanNeutrality, 1914–1917[1939].PortWashington,N.Y.:KennikatPress,1968. Photoplay.Selectedreviews,1922–1942. Pitkin,WalterC.“ScreenCrimevs.PressCrime.”Outlook,29July1931. Potamkin, Harry Alan. “Storm over Asia and Abraham Lincoln.” New Masses (October1930):16. Powers-Waters,Alma.JohnBarrymore.NewYork:J.Messner,1941. Ramsaye,Terry.AMillionandOneNights.2vols.NewYork:Simon&Schuster, 1926. ––––––.“YoungMr.Lincoln.”MotionPictureHerald,3June1939,36. Randall,JamesG.“Lincoln’sTaskandWilson’s.”SouthAtlanticQuarterly29, no.4(October1930):349–68. ––––––.“HastheLincolnThemeBeenExhausted?”AmericanHistoricalReview 41(1936):270–94. ––––––.CivilWarandReconstruction.Boston:D.C.Heath,1937. Reep,ThomasP.LincolnandNewSalem.Petersburg,Ill.:OldSalemLincoln League,1927. Richardson,FrancesCary.“PrevioustoPreviews.”WilsonBulletinforLibrarians 12,no.9(May1939):589–92.
SelectedBibliography 421
Roberts,ElizabethMadox.TheGreatMeadow.NewYork:VikingPress,1930. Roberts,Kenneth.NorthwestPassage.NewYork:Doubleday,Doran,1938. Rogers,Ginger.Ginger:MyStory.NewYork:HarperCollins,1991. Roosevelt,FranklinD.ThePublicPapersandAddressesofFranklinD.Roosevelt. NewYork:Macmillan,1941. Roosevelt,Theodore.TheWinningoftheWest.7vols.NewYork:G.P.Putnam’s Sons,1907. Rosenfield,John.“JesseJamesHeroofEpicMelodrama.”DallasTexasNews,22 January1939. Rosten,Leo.Hollywood.NewYork:HBJ,1941. Rotha,Paul.TheFilmtillNow:ASurveyoftheCinema[1930].London:Spring Books,1967. Sandburg,Carl.AbrahamLincoln:ThePrairieYears.2vols.NewYork:Harcourt, Brace,1926. Schallert,Edwin.Selectedreviews.LosAngelesTimes,1932–1941. Schlesinger,ArthurM.,Sr.TheRiseoftheCity,1878–98.NewYork:Macmillan,1933. Seldes,Gilbert.TheSevenLivelyArts.NewYork:SagamorePress,1924. ––––––.AnHourwiththeMoviesandtheTalkies.Philadelphia:J.B.Lippincott, 1929. ––––––.TheMoviesComefromAmerica.NewYork:Scribner’sSons,1937. Seymour,Charles.AmericanNeutrality,1914–1917.NewHaven,Conn.:Yale UniversityPress,1935. Sherwood,RobertE.Selectedreviews.HollywoodReporter,1922–1936. ––––––.“RenaissanceinHollywood.”AmericanMercury16,no.64(April1929): 431–37. ––––––.“TheMovingPictureAlbum:Cimarron.”HollywoodDailyCitizen,7 February1931. ––––––. “The Moving Picture Album: Scarface.” Hollywood Citizen-News, 2 April1932. ––––––.AbeLincolninIllinois.NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1939. Simkins, Francis Butler, and James Welch Patton. The Women of the Confederacy.Richmond,Va.:GarrettandMassie,1936. Skeyhill,Tom.SergeantYork:HisOwnLifeStoryandWarDiary.GardenCity, N.Y.:Doubleday,Doran,1928. ––––––.SergeantYork:TheLastoftheLongHunters.Philadelphia:JohnC.Winston,1930. Slide,Anthony,ed.SelectedFilmCriticism,1896–1960.6vols.Metuchen,N.J.: ScarecrowPress,1982–1985. Slosson,PrestonW.TheGreatCrusadeandAfter,1914–1928.NewYork:Macmillan,1930. Sullivan,EdwardD.LookatChicago.Chicago:Bles,1930. Sutton,FredE.,andA.B.MacDonald. HandsUp!NewYork:Bobbs-Merrill, 1927. Swanson,NeilHamilton.TheFirstRebel:BeingaLostChapterofOurHistory. NewYork:Farrar&Reinhart,1937. Tansill,CharlesC.AmericaGoestoWar.Boston:Little,Brown,1938. Tarbell,Ida.TheEarlyLifeofAbrahamLincoln.NewYork:S.S.McClure,1896.
422 SelectedBibliography
––––––.LifeofAbrahamLincoln.NewYork:Macmillan,1917. ––––––.IntheFootstepsoftheLincolns.NewYork:Harper&Brothers,1924. Thomas,BenjaminP.Lincoln’sNewSalem.Springfield,Ill.:AbrahamLincoln Association,1934. Thorp,MargaretFarrand.AmericaattheMovies.NewHaven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress,1939. Time.Selectedreviews,1936–1942. Toland,Gregg.“HowIBroketheRulesinCitizenKane.”PopularPhotography Magazine8(June1941):55. Trail,Armitage.Scarface[1930].London:Bloomsbury,1997. Turner,FrederickJackson.RereadingFrederickJacksonTurner.EditedbyJohn MackFaragher.NewYork:HenryHolt,1994. VanDoren,Dorothy.“APioneerFairyStory.”Nation130(23April1930):494. Variety.Selectedreviews,1928–1942. Vestal,Stanley.“Cimarron.”SaturdayReviewofLiterature6(22March1930):841. Vroman,A.C.,andT.F.Barnes.TheGenesisoftheStoryofRamona:Whythe BookWasWritten,ExplanatoryTextofPointsofInterestMentionedinthe Story.LosAngeles:PressofKingsley-BarnesandNeuner,1899. Waples,Dorothy.TheWhigMythofJamesFenimoreCooper.NewHaven,Conn.: YaleUniversityPress,1938. TheWaroftheRebellion:ACompilationoftheOfficialRecordsoftheUnionandConfederateArmies.Washington,D.C.:GovernmentPrintingOffice,1893,1895. Watts,Richard,Jr.Selectedreviews.NewYorkHeraldTribune,1930–1934. Wecter,Dixon.TheHeroinAmerica:AChronicleofHeroWorship.NewYork: CharlesScribner’sSons,1941. Wellman,Paul.DeathintheDesert:TheFiftyYearsWarfortheGreatSouthwest. NewYork:Macmillan,1935. West,Mae.GoodnessHadNothingtoDowithIt.NewYork:McFadden,1970. Whitney,HenryClay.LifeontheCircuitCourtwithLincoln.WithanintroductionbyPaulAngle.Caldwell,Ind.:CaxtonPrinters,1940. Wilson,Woodrow.AHistoryoftheAmericanPeople.5vols.NewYork:Harper& Brothers,1902. Wilstach,FrankJ.WildBillHickok—PrinceofPistoleers.NewYork:Doubleday, Page,1926. Wright,A.M.R.TheDramaticLifeofAbrahamLincoln.NewYork:Grosset& Dunlap,1925. Wright, Louis B. “American Democracy and the Frontier.” Yale Review 22 (1930):349–65. Wyatt,E.VanRensselaer.“AbeLincolninIllinois.”CatholicWorld148(December1938):340. Young,Stark.SoRedtheRose.NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1934. ––––––.StarkYoung:ALifeintheArts,Letters,1900–1962.EditedbyJohnPilkington.BatonRouge:LouisianaStateUniversityPress,1960. SecondarySources Abramson,R.,andR.Thompson.“YoungMr.LincolnReconsidered:AnEssay
SelectedBibliography 423
on the Theory and Practice of Film Criticism.” Ciné-Tracts 2, no. 1 (fall 1978):41–9,50–62. Allen,RobertC.,andDouglasGomery.FilmHistory:TheoryandPractice.New York:RandomHouse,1985. Allsop,Kenneth.TheBootleggers:TheStoryofChicago’sProhibitionEra[1961]. NewRochelle,N.Y.:ArlingtonHouse,1968. Altman,CharlesF.“TowardsaHistoriographyofAmericanFilm.”CinemaJournal16,no.2(1977):1–25. Altman,Rick.Film/Genre.London:BFI,1999. Ames, Christopher. Movies about the Movies: Hollywood Reflected. Lexington: UniversityPressofKentucky,1997. Anderson,Christopher.“JesseJames,theBourgeoisBandit:TheTransformation ofaPopularHero.”CinemaJournal26,no.1(fall1986):43–64. Anderson,Fred.TheCrucibleofWar:TheSevenYears’WarandtheFateofEmpireinBritishNorthAmerica.NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,2000. Anderson,PatrickD.InItsOwnImage:TheCinematicVisionofHollywood.New York:ArnoPress,1978. Andrew,Dudley.FilmintheAuraofArt.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversity Press,1984. ––––––.“FilmandHistory.”InTheOxfordGuidetoFilmStudies.EditedbyJohnHill andPamelaChurchGibson,176–89.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1998. Appleby,Joyce,etal.TellingtheTruthaboutHistory.NewYork:W.W.Norton, 1994. Balio,Tino.GrandDesign:HollywoodasaModernBusinessEnterprise,1930– 1939.NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1993. Barker, Martin, and Roger Sabin. The Lasting of the Mohicans: History of an AmericanMyth.Jackson:UniversityPressofMississippi,1995. Barr,Charles.“DodgeCity.”InTheBookofWesterns.EditedbyIanCameron andDouglasPye,181–88.NewYork:Continuum,1996. Barthes,Roland.Mythologies.NewYork:Hill&Wang,1975. Baxter,John.HollywoodintheThirties.NewYork:Barnes,1968. ––––––.TheGangsterFilm.London:A.Zwemmer,1970. Bazin,André.“TheEvolutionoftheLanguageofCinema.”InWhatIsCinema? vol.1.EditedbyHughGray.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1967. ––––––.“TheEvolutionoftheWestern.”InWhatIsCinema?vol.2.Editedby HughGray.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1972. ––––––. Orson Welles: A Critical View [1978]. Los Angeles: Acrobat Books, 1991. Beck,Philip.“Historicism,Historicity,andFilmHistoriography.”JournalofFilm andVideo37(winter1985):5–17. Behlmer,Rudy.“TotheWildernessforNorthwestPassage.”AmericanCinematographer68,no.11(November1987):38–47. ––––––.BehindtheScenes.Hollywood:SamuelFrench,1990. ––––––.“LandofLiberty,aConglomerate.”AmericanCinematographer72,no. 3(March1991):34–40. Beja,Morris,ed.PerspectivesonOrsonWelles.NewYork:G.K.Hall,1995. Belton, John. “American Cinema and Film History.” In The Oxford Guide to
424 SelectedBibliography
FilmStudies.EditedbyJohnHillandPamelaChurchGibson,227–37.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1998. Benson,SusanPorter,etal.TheNewAmericanHistory.Philadelphia:Temple UniversityPress,1997. Bergman,Andrew.We’reintheMoney:DepressionAmericaandItsFilms.New York:NewYorkUniversityPress,1971. Bernstein,Matthew.“Selznick’sMarch:TheAtlantaPremiereofGonewiththe Wind.”AtlantaHistory43,no.2(summer1999):7–33. ––––––, ed. Controlling Hollywood: Censorship and Regulation in the Studio Era.NewBrunswick,N.J.:RutgersUniversityPress,1999. Bernstein,Matthew,andGaylynStudlar,eds.JohnFordMadeWesterns.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,2000. Birchard,RobertS.CecilB.DeMille’sHollywood.Lexington:UniversityPressof Kentucky,2004. Birdwell,MichaelE.CelluloidSoldiers:TheWarnerBros.CampaignagainstNazism.NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress,1999. Bonitzer, Pascal. “The Silences of the Voice” [1975, Cahiers du cinéma]. ReprintedinNarrative,Apparatus,Ideology.EditedbyPhilipRosen,319–34. NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1986. Bordwell,David.OntheHistoryofFilmStyle.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1997. Bordwell,David,KristinThompson,andJanetStaiger.TheClassicalHollywood Cinema:FilmStyleandModeofProductionto1960.NewYork:Columbia UniversityPress,1985. Bourget,Jean-Loup.“SocialImplicationsoftheHollywoodGenres”[1973].ReprintedinTheFilmGenreReaderII.EditedbyBarryKeithGrant,50–58. Austin:UniversityofTexasPress,1995. Braudy,Leo.FrenzyofRenown:FameandItsHistory.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1986. Braudy,Leo,andMarshallCohen,eds.FilmTheoryandCriticism,6thed.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004. Brown,Harry.InjunJoe’sGhost:TheIndianMixed-BloodinAmericanWriting. Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,2004. Browne,Nick.“Cahiersducinéma’sRereadingofHollywoodCinema.”QuarterlyReviewofFilmStudies3,no.3(summer1978):405–16. ––––––. “The Spectator of American Symbolic Forms: Rereading John Ford’s YoungMr.Lincoln.”FilmReader4(1979):180–88. ––––––.“TheSpectator-in-the-Text:TheRhetoricofStagecoach.”InFilmTheory andCriticism,6thed.EditedbyLeoBraudyandMarshallCohen,118–33. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004. Bruns,Roger.TheBanditKings:FromJesseJamestoPrettyBoyFloyd.NewYork: Crown,1995. Burgoyne,Robert.FilmNation:HollywoodLooksatU.S.History.Minneapolis: UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1997. Buscombe,Edward.Stagecoach.London:BFI,1992. Cameron, Ian, and Douglas Pye, eds. The Book of Westerns. New York, Continuum,1996.
SelectedBibliography 425
Cameron,KennethM.AmericaonFilm:HollywoodandAmericanHistory.New York:Continuum,1997. Carnes,MarkC.,ed.PastImperfect:HistoryAccordingtotheMovies.NewYork: HenryHolt,1995. Carringer,RobertL.TheMakingofCitizenKane.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1985. Caton,StevenC.LawrenceofArabia:AFilm’sAnthropology.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1999. Cawelti,JohnG.TheSix-GunMystique.BowlingGreen,Ohio:BowlingGreen UniversityPopularPress,1971. Clarens, Carlos. Crime Movies: From Griffith to The Godfather and Beyond. NewYork:W.W.Norton,1980. Clinton, Catherine. Tara Revisited: Women, War, and the Plantation Legend. NewYork:AbbevillePress,1995. ––––––,ed.Half-SistersofHistory:SouthernWomenandtheAmericanPast.Durham,N.C.:DukeUniversityPress,1994. Cohen,PaulaMarantz.SilentFilmandtheTriumphoftheAmericanMyth.New York:OxfordUniversityPress,2000. Comolli, Jean-Luc, and Jean Narboni. “Cinema/Ideology/Criticism” [1969]. ReprintedinFilmTheoryandCriticism,6thed.EditedbyLeoBraudyand MarshallCohen,812–19.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004. Cormack,Mike.IdeologyandCinematographyinHollywood,1930–1939.London:Macmillan,1994. Crafton,Donald.“ThePortraitasProtagonist:ThePrivateLifeofHenryVIII.”Iris 14–15(fall1992):25–43. ––––––.TheTalkies:AmericanCinema’sTransitiontoSound,1926–1931.New York:CharlesScribner’sSons,1997. Cripps,Thomas.SlowFadetoBlack:TheNegroinAmericanFilm,1900–1942. NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1977. ––––––.“WindsofChange:GonewiththeWindandRacismasaNationalIssue.” InRecasting:GonewiththeWindinAmericanCulture.EditedbyDardenAsburyPryon,137–52.Miami:UniversityPressesofFlorida,1983. ––––––.Hollywood’sHighNoon:MoviemakingandSocietybeforeTelevision.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1997. Croce,Arlene.TheFredAstaireandGingerRogersBook.NewYork:Outerbridge &Lazard,1972. Cullen, Jim. The Civil War in Popular Culture: A Reusable Past. Washington, D.C.:SmithsonianInstitutionPress,1995. Custen, George F. Bio/Pics: How Hollywood Constructed Public History. New Brunswick,N.J.:RutgersUniversityPress,1992. ––––––.TwentiethCentury’sFox:DarrylF.ZanuckandtheCultureofHollywood. NewYork:BasicBooks,1997. Davis,NatalieZemon.“‘AnyResemblancetoPersonsLivingorDead’:Filmandthe ChallengeofAuthenticity.”YaleReview76,no.4(summer1987):457–80. ––––––.SlavesonScreen.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,2001. DeLyser,Dydia.RamonaMemories:TourismandtheShapingofSouthernCalifornia.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2005.
426 SelectedBibliography
Denning,Michael.TheCulturalFront.NewYork:Verso,1997. Dickson,Paul,andThomasB.Allen.TheBonusArmy:AnAmericanEpic.New York:Walker,2004. Dippe,Brian.Custer’sLastStand:TheAnatomyofanAmericanMyth.Lincoln: UniversityofNebraskaPress,1994. Donald,David.Lincoln’sHerndon.NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,1948. ––––––.LincolnReconsidered:EssaysontheCivilWarEra.NewYork:AlfredA. Knopf,1956. ––––––.Lincoln.NewYork:Simon&Schuster,1995. Dooley,Roger.FromScarfacetoScarlett:AmericanFilmsinthe1930s.NewYork: HBJ,1981. Duff,JohnJ.A.Lincoln:PrairieLawyer.NewYork:Rinehart,1960. Dyer,Richard.Stars.London:BFI,1979. EditorsofCahiersducinéma.“JohnFord’sYoungMr.Lincoln”[1970].ReprintedinNarrative,Apparatus,Ideology.EditedbyPhilipRosen,444–82.New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1986. Edwards,Anne.ARemarkableWoman:ABiographyofKatharineHepburn.New York:WilliamMorrow,1985. Eliade,Mircea.TheSacredandtheProfane.NewYork:Harcourt,Brace,1959. Elsaesser,Thomas,withAdamBarker,eds.EarlyCinema:Space,Frame,Narrative.London:BFI,1990. Falkenberg,Pamela.“Rewritingthe‘ClassicHollywoodCinema’:TextualAnalysis,IronicDistance,andtheWesternintheCritiqueofCorporateCapitalism.”Ph.D.diss.,UniversityofIowa,1983. Faust,DrewGilpin.MothersofInvention:WomenoftheSlaveholdingSouthin theAmericanCivilWar.NewYork:Vintage,1996. Ferro,Marc.CinemaandHistory.TranslatedbyNaomiGreene.Detroit:Wayne StateUniversityPress,1988. Fine, David. Los Angeles: A City in Fiction. Albuquerque: University of New MexicoPress,2000. Fine,Richard.HollywoodandtheProfessionofAuthorship,1928–1940.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,1985. Foner, Eric. Reconstruction, 1863–77: America’s Unfinished Revolution. New York:Harper&Row,1988. French,Philip.Westerns.NewYork:VikingPress,1973. Gaines,Jane,ed.ClassicalHollywoodNarrative:TheParadigmWars.Durham, N.C.:DukeUniversityPress,1992. Gallafent,Edward.AstaireandRogers.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2002. Gallagher,Gary,andAlanT.Nolan,eds.TheMythoftheLostCauseandCivil WarHistory.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,2000. Gallagher,Tag.JohnFord:TheManandHisFilms.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1986. Gardner,Sarah.BloodandIrony:SouthernWhiteWomen’sNarrativesoftheCivil War,1861–1937.ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,2004. Gehring,WesD.PopulismandtheCapraLegacy.Westport,Conn.:Greenwood Press,1995. Gilbert,JulieGoldsmith.Ferber:ABiography.GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday,1978.
SelectedBibliography 427
Glatthaar,JosephT.TheMarchtotheSeaandBeyond:Sherman’sTroopsinthe SavannahandGeorgiaCampaigns.NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress, 1985. Glover, Susan. “Battling the Elements: Reconstructing the Heroic in Robert Rogers.”JournalofAmericanCulture26,no.2(June2003):180–87. Gomery,Douglas.TheHollywoodStudioSystem.NewYork:St.Martin’sPress, 1986. Gottesman,Ronald,ed.PerspectivesonCitizenKane.NewYork:G.K.Hall,1996. Grant, Barry Keith, ed. The Film Genre Reader II. Austin: University of Texas Press,1995. ––––––.JohnFord’sStagecoach.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2003. Gussow,Mel.Don’tSayYesuntilIFinishTalking:ABiographyofDarrylF.Zanuck.GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday,1971. Hamilton, Ian. Writers in Hollywood, 1915–1951. New York: Harper & Row, 1990. Handlin,Oscar,etal.TheHarvardGuidetoAmericanHistory.Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversityPress,1954. Hansen,Miriam.“MassProductionoftheSenses:ClassicalCinemaasVernacularModernism.”InReinventingFilmStudies.EditedbyLindaWilliamsand ChristineGledhill,332–50.London:Arnold,1999. Haver, Ronald. David O. Selznick’s Hollywood. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1980. Hitt,Jim.TheAmericanWestfromFiction(1823–1986)intoFilm(1909–1986). Jefferson,N.C.:McFarland,1990. Isenberg,MichaelT.WaronFilm.London:AssociatedUniversityPresses,1981. Issel,William,andRobertV.Cherny.SanFrancisco,1865–1932:Politics,Power, andUrbanDevelopment.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1986. Jewell,RichardA.,withVernonHarbin.TheRKOStory.NewYork:Arlington House,1982. Jones, Alfred H. Roosevelt’s Image Brokers. Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press,1974. Jones,GordonL.“SoRedtheRose:Atlanta’sGonewiththeWindThatWasn’t.” AtlantaHistory43,no.2(summer1999):45–67. Jowett,Garth.Film:TheDemocraticArt:ASocialHistoryoftheAmericanFilm. Boston:Little,Brown,1976. ––––––. “Bullets, Beer, and the Hays Office.” In American History/American Film.EditedbyJohnO’ConnorandMartinA.Jackson,57–75.NewYork: Ungar,1979. Kael,Pauline.RaisingKaneandOtherEssays.London:MarionBoyers,1996. Karpf,StephenLouis.TheGangsterFilm:Emergence,Variation,andDecayofa Genre.NewYork:Arno,1973. Kasson,JoyS.BuffaloBill’sWildWest:Celebrity,Memory,andPopularHistory. NewYork:Hill&Wang,2001. Kelly,William.PlottingAmerica’sPast:FenimoreCooperandtheLeatherstocking Tales.Carbondale:SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress,1983. Kennedy,DavidM.OverHere:TheFirstWorldWarandAmericanSociety.New York:OxfordUniversityPress,1980.
428 SelectedBibliography
Kennett,Lee.MarchingthroughGeorgia:TheStoryofSoldiersandCiviliansduringSherman’sCampaign.NewYork:HarperCollins,1995. Klein,KerwinLee.FrontiersoftheHistoricalImagination.Berkeley:University ofCaliforniaPress,1997. Kreuger,Miles.ShowBoat.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1977. Landy,Marcia.CinematicUsesofthePast.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1996. ––––––,ed.TheHistoricalFilm:HistoryandMemoryinMedia.NewBrunswick, N.J.:RutgersUniversityPress,2001. Lang,Robert,ed.TheBirthofaNation.NewBrunswick,N.J.:RutgersUniversity Press,1994. Lasky,Betty.RKO:TheBiggestLittleMajorofThemAll.EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.: Prentice-Hall,1984. Lawson-Peebles,Robert.“TheLessonoftheMassacreatFortWilliamHenry.” In New Essays on The Last of the Mohicans. Edited by H. Daniel Peck, 115–38.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1992. Lears,T.J.Jackson.NoPlaceofGrace:AntimodernismandtheTransformationof AmericanCulture,1880–1920.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1981. Lee,DavidE.SergeantYork:AnAmericanHero.Lexington:UniversityPressof Kentucky,1985. Leff,LeonardJ.,andJeroldL.Simmons.TheDameintheKimono:Hollywood, Censorship,andtheProductionCode.Lexington:UniversityPressofKentucky,2001. Leibowitz, Herbert A. Fabricating Lives: Explorations in American Autobiography.NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,1989. Leuchtenburg,WilliamE.FranklinD.RooseveltandtheNewDeal,1932–40. NewYork:Harper&Row,1963. Lévi-Strauss,Claude.TheRawandtheCooked:IntroductiontoaScienceofMythology,vol.1.NewYork:Harper&Row,1969. Limerick,PatriciaNelson.LegacyofConquest:TheUnbrokenPastoftheAmericanWest.NewYork:W.W.Norton,1987. MacAdams,William.BenHecht.NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1990. Maltby,Richard.“GriefintheLimelight:AlCapone,HowardHughes,theHays CodeandthePoliticsoftheUnstableText.”InMoviesandPolitics:TheDynamicRelationship.EditedbyJamesCombs,133–81.NewYork:Garland, 1993. ––––––.“TragicHeroes?AlCaponeandtheSpectacleofCriminality,1948–1931.” InScreeningthePast:The6thAustralianHistoryandFilmConferencePapers. EditedbyJohnBenson,112–19.Bundoora:LaTrobeUniversity,1993. ––––––. “A Better Sense of History: John Ford and the Indians.” In The Book of Westerns. Edited by Ian Cameron and Douglas Pye, 34–49. New York: Continuum,1996. Marsden,MichaelT.,JohnG.Nachbar,andSamL.GroggJr.,eds.Moviesas Artifacts.Chicago:Nelson-Hall,1982. Martin,Terence.“FromAtrocitytoRequiem:HistoryinTheLastoftheMohicans.” In New Essays on The Last of the Mohicans. Edited by H. Daniel Peck,47–66.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1992.
SelectedBibliography 429
May,Lary.TheBigTomorrow:HollywoodandthePoliticsoftheAmericanWay. Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2000. McCarthy,Todd.HowardHawks.NewYork:GrovePress,1997. McCartney,PaulT.PowerandProgress:AmericanNationalIdentity,theWarof 1898,andtheRiseofAmericanImperialism.BatonRouge:LouisianaState UniversityPress,2006. McCarty, John. Hollywood Gangland: The Movies’ Love Affair with the Mob. NewYork:St.Martin’sPress,1993. McElvaine, Robert S. The Great Depression: America, 1929–1941. New York: TimesBooks,1984. McPherson,James.BattleCryofFreedom.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress, 1988. McPherson, Tara. Reconstructing Dixie: Race, Gender, and Nostalgia in the ImaginedSouth.Durham,N.C.:DukeUniversityPress,2003. Michaels,WalterBenn.OurAmerica:Nativism,Modernism,andPluralism.Durham,N.C.:DukeUniversityPress,1995. Mizejewski,Linda.ZiegfeldGirl.Durham,N.C.:DukeUniversityPress,1999. Moses,L.G.WildWestShowsandtheImagesofAmericanIndians,1883–1933. Albuquerque:UniversityofNewMexicoPress,1996. Mulvey,Laura.CitizenKane.London:BFI,1992. Munby,Jonathan.PublicEnemies,PublicHeroes:ScreeningtheGangsterfrom LittleCaesartoTouchofEvil.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1999. Nachbar,Jack,ed.FocusontheWestern.EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:Prentice-Hall, 1974. Nash,GeraldD.CreatingtheWest:HistoricalInterpretations,1890–1990.Albuquerque:UniversityofNewMexicoPress,1991. Neely,MarkE.,Jr.“TheYoungLincoln:TwoFilms.”InPastImperfect:History According to the Movies. Edited by Mark C. Carnes, 124–27. New York: HenryHolt,1995. Novick,Peter.ThatNobleDream:The“ObjectivityQuestion”andtheAmerican HistoricalProfession.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1988. O’Connor, John. “A Reaffirmation of American Ideals: Drums along the Mohawk.”InAmericanHistory/AmericanFilm:InterpretingtheHollywoodImage.EditedbyJohnO’ConnorandMartinA.Jackson,97–119.NewYork: Ungar,1979. O’Connor,John,andMartinJackson,eds.AmericanHistory/AmericanFilm:InterpretingtheHistoricalImage.NewYork:Ungar,1979. Palmer, Allen W. “Cecil B. DeMille Writes America’s History for the 1939 World’sFair.”FilmHistory5,no.1(March1993):36–48. Parish,JamesRobert,andMichaelR.Pitts.HollywoodonHollywood.Metuchen, N.J.:ScarecrowPress,1978. Parks,Rita.TheWesternHeroinFilmandTelevision:MassMediaMythology. AnnArbor,Mich.:UMIResearchPress,1982. Pauly,ThomasH.“GonewiththeWindandTheGrapesofWrathasHollywood HistoriesoftheDepression.”JournalofPopularFilm3,no.3(1974):202–18. Peck,H.Daniel,ed.NewEssaysonTheLastoftheMohicans.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1992.
430 SelectedBibliography
Pells,Richard.RadicalVisionsandAmericanDreams.NewYork:Harper&Row, 1973. Perkins,V.F.TheMagnificentAmbersons.London:BFI,1999. Peterson,MerrillD.LincolninAmericanMemory.NewYork:OxfordUniversity Press,1994. Pheil,Fred.AnotherTaletoTell:PoliticsandNarrativeinPostmodernCulture. London:Verso,1990. Philips,GeneD.“AStarIsBorn.”FilmsinReview40,nos.8–9(August–September1989):445. Pizzitola,Louis.HearstoverHollywood.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2002. Place,J.A.“YoungMr.Lincoln.”WideAngle2,no.4(1978):28–35. ––––––. The Non-Western Films of John Ford. Secaucus, N.J.: Citadel Press, 1979. Powdermaker,Hortense.Hollywood:TheDreamFactory.Boston:Little,Brown, 1950. Pyron,DardenAsbury,ed.Recasting:GonewiththeWindinAmericanCulture. Miami:UniversityPressesofFlorida,1983. Ray,RobertB.ACertainTendencyoftheHollywoodCinema,1930–1980.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,1985. Reinhart,MarkS.AbrahamLincolnonScreen:AFilmography,1903–1998.Jefferson,N.C.:McFarland,1998. Renov,Michael,ed.TheorizingDocumentary.NewYork:Routledge,1993. Riley, Glenda. The Life and Legend of Annie Oakley. Norman: University of OklahomaPress,1998. Riley,MichaelJ.“TrappedintheHistoryofFilm:TheVanishingAmerican.”In Hollywood’sIndian.EditedbyPeterC.RollinsandJohnO’Connor.Lexington:UniversityPressofKentucky,1998. Roberts,Diane.TheMythofAuntJemima:RepresentationsofRaceandRegion. London:Routledge,1994. Roche,MarkW.,andVittorioHoesle.“Vico’sAgeofHeroesandtheAgeofMen in John Ford’s Film The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.” Clio 23, no. 2 (1994):131–47. Roddick,Nick.ANewDealinEntertainment:WarnerBrothersintheThirties. London:BFI,1983. Roediger,David.TheWagesofWhiteness:RaceandtheMakingoftheAmerican WorkingClass.NewYork:Verso,1991. Rollins,PeterC.,ed.TheColumbiaCompaniontoAmericanHistoryonFilm: How the Movies Have Portrayed the American Past. New York: Columbia UniversityPress,2004. Rollins,PeterC.,andJohnE.O’Connor,eds.Hollywood’sIndian.Lexington: UniversityPressofKentucky,1998. Roman,RobertC.“LincolnontheScreen.”FilmsinReview(February1961): 87–101. Rosen,Philip.“SecuringtheHistorical:HistoriographyandtheClassicalCinema.” In Cinema Histories, Cinema Practices. Edited by Patricia MellencampandPhilipRosen,17–34.Frederick,Md.:UniversityPublicationsof America,1984.
SelectedBibliography 431
––––––.ChangeMummified:Cinema,Historicity,Theory.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2001. Rosenstone,RobertA.VisionsofthePast:TheChallengeofFilmtoOurIdeaof History.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1995. ––––––. “Inventing Historical Truth on the Silver Screen.” Cineaste 29, no. 2 (spring2004):29–33. ––––––.HistoryonFilm/FilmasHistory.NewYork:Longman/Pearson,2006. Rosow,Eugene.BorntoLose:TheGangsterFilminAmerica.NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress,1978. Ruth,DavidE.InventingthePublicEnemy:TheGangsterinAmericanCulture, 1918–1934.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1996. Sarris, Andrew. The American Cinema, Directors and Directions, 1929–1968. NewYork:E.P.Dutton,1968. ––––––.TheJohnFordMovieMystery.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress, 1975. Schatz,Thomas.HollywoodGenres:Formulas,Filmmaking,andtheStudioSystem.Philadelphia:TempleUniversityPress,1981. ––––––.TheGeniusoftheSystem.NewYork:Pantheon,1988. ––––––.“‘ATriumphofBitchery’:WarnerBros.,BetteDavis,andJezebel.”In The Studio System. Edited by Janet Staiger, 74–92. New Brunswick, N.J.: RutgersUniversityPress,1995. ––––––.BoomandBust:AmericanCinemainthe1940s.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress,1997. Shindler,Colin.HollywoodinCrisis:CinemaandAmericanSociety,1929–1939. NewYork:Routledge,1996. Silva,Fred,ed.FocusonTheBirthofaNation.EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:PrenticeHall,1971. Sklar,Robert.Movie-MadeAmerica:ACulturalHistoryofAmericanMovieMaking.NewYork:RandomHouse,1975. Slotkin,Richard.RegenerationthroughViolence:TheMythologyoftheAmerican Frontier,1600–1860.Middletown,Conn.:WesleyanUniversityPress,1973. ––––––.TheFatalEnvironment:TheMythoftheFrontierintheAgeofIndustrialization,1800–1890.Norman:UniversityofOklahomaPress,1985. ––––––.GunfighterNation:TheMythoftheFrontierinTwentieth-CenturyAmerica.Norman:UniversityofOklahomaPress,1998. Smith,DavidL.“JohnBowers:ThisIstheRealNormanMaine.”Filmsofthe GoldenAge35(winter2003–2004):68–77. Smith,HenryNash.VirginLand:TheAmericanWestasSymbolandMyth.New York:Viking,1950. Smyth,J.E.“Cimarron:TheNewWesternHistoryin1931.”Film&History33, no.1(2003):9–17. ––––––.“YoungMr.Lincoln:BetweenMythandHistoryin1939.”Rethinking History7,no.2(summer2003):193–214. ––––––.“RevisioningModernAmericanHistoryintheAgeofScarface(1932).”HistoricalJournalofFilm,Radio,andTelevision24,no.4(October2004):535–63. Sorlin,Pierre.TheFilminHistory:RestagingthePast.Totowa,N.J.:Barnes& Noble,1980.
432 SelectedBibliography
––––––. “Cinema: An Undiscoverable History?” Paragraph 15, no. 1 (March 1992):1–18. Spatz,James.HollywoodinFiction:SomeVersionsoftheAmericanMyth.Brussels:Mouton,1969. Stanfield,Peter.Hollywood,Westernsandthe1930s:TheLostTrail.Exeter:UniversityofExeterPress,2001. Steele,IanK.“CooperandClio:TheSourcesfor‘ANarrativeof1757.’”CanadianReviewofAmericanStudies20(winter1989):121–35. Stempel,Tom.Screenwriter:TheLifeandTimesofNunnallyJohnson.NewYork: A.S.Barnes,1980. Stern,Jerome.“GonewiththeWind:TheSouthasAmerica.”SouthernHumanitiesReview6(winter1972):5–12. Stewart, Garrett. Between Film and Screen: Modernism’s Photo Synthesis. Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1999. Stiles,T.J.JesseJames.NewYork:Simon&Schuster,2002. Strout, Cushing. The Pragmatic Revolt: Carl Becker and Charles Beard. New Haven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress,1958. Susman,WarrenI.“TheThirties.”InTheDevelopmentofanAmericanCulture. EditedbyStanleyCohenandLormanRatner.EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:Prentice-Hall,1970. ––––––.“FilmandHistory:ArtifactandExperience.”FilmandHistory15,no.2 (May1985):25–36. Swanberg,W.A.CitizenHearst:ABiographyofWilliamRandolphHearst.New York:CharlesScribner’sSons,1961. Tatum,Stephen.InventingBillytheKid:VisionsoftheOutlawinAmerica,1881– 1981.Albuquerque:UniversityofNewMexicoPress,1982. Thompson,Frank.LostFilms:ImportantMoviesthatDisappeared.NewYork: CitadelPress,1996. Thompson,John.ClosingtheFrontier:RadicalResponseinOklahoma,1889– 1923.Norman:UniversityofOklahomaPress,1986. Trachtenberg,Alan.ReadingAmericanPhotographs:ImagesasHistory,Mathew BradytoWalkerEvans.NewYork:Hill&Wang,1989. Tuska,Jon.“TheAmericanWesternCinema:1903–Present.”InFocusontheWestern. EditedbyJackNachbar,25–44.EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:Prentice-Hall,1974. Vertrees, Alan David. Selznick’s Vision: Gone with the Wind and Hollywood Filmmaking.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress,1997. Warshow,Robert.TheImmediateExperience:Movies,Comics,Theatre&Other AspectsofPopularCulture.GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday,1962. Watts, Jill, “Sacred and Profane: Mae West’s (re)Presentation of Western Religion.”InOvertheEdge:RemappingtheAmericanWest.EditedbyValerie MatsumotoandBlakeAllmendinger,50–64.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1999. Weckesser,EldenC.HisNameWasMudd.Jefferson,N.C.:McFarland,1991. White,Hayden.“HistoriographyandHistoriophoty.”AmericanHistoricalReview 93,no.5(1988):1193–99. White,Richard.WesternHistory.Washington,D.C.:AmericanHistoricalAssociation,1997.
SelectedBibliography 433
Williams,Linda.PlayingtheRaceCard.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversity Press,2001. Williams,WilliamAppleman.TheTragedyofAmericanDiplomacy[1959].New York:W.W.Norton,1988. Wish,Harvey.TheAmericanHistorian:ASocial-IntellectualHistoryoftheWritingoftheAmericanPast.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1960. Wood,Robin.“DrumsalongtheMohawk.”InTheBookofWesterns.Editedby IanCameronandDouglasPye,174–80.NewYork:Continuum,1996. Woodward,C.Vann.TomWatson:AgrarianRebel.NewYork:Macmillan,1938. Wright,Will.SixGunsandSociety:AStructuralStudyoftheWestern.Berkeley: UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1975. Young,Elizabeth.DisarmingtheNation.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress, 1999. Zieger,Robert.America’sGreatWar:WorldWarIandtheAmericanExperience. Lanham,Md.:Rowman&Littlefield,2000.
This page intentionally left blank
Index
Index Abbot,WillisJ.,322–23 AbeLincolninIllinois(1938),175, 242,318 AbeLincolninIllinois(1940), 189–94,282 AbrahamLincoln(1930),28–29,169, 172,177,189,253,256,288,308 Adamson,Ewart,91 AdventuresofRobinHood,The (1938),227 AgeofInnocence,The(1934),91 AlexanderHamilton(1931),14,21, 57–59,84,253,256 Alexander’sRagtimeBand(1938), 173,207,245,283,286,294,296 AllQuietontheWesternFront(1930), 62–63,204,217 AlleghenyUprising(1939),228, 241–42 Allen,FrederickLewis,61–62 Allen,Hervey,204 Almach,JohnC.,33 Altman,Rick,8 Ameche,Don,292,294 America(1924),28 Anderson,Eddie,164 Andrews,ElizaFrances,141,147–48, 165,340 Angle,Paul,179,185
AnnieOakley(1935),17,91–94,107, 109,114,241,308 Arbuckle,Roscoe“Fatty,”255 Arizonian,The(1935),20,118,241 Arliss,George,57–58,95 Astaire,Fred,209–10 auteurcriticism,8,17,116–18, 309–10,319–20,325–26 Autry,Gene,89 Baer,Richard,325 Baker,Newton,206,238 Balderston,John,91,95,99–100 Baldwin,Earl,218 BallofFire(1941),339 Bancroft,George,4 Bankhead,Tallulah,261 Barnes,Howard,136–37,209,317 Barrymore,John,253,262,274–75,305 Barthes,Roland,15 Basler,Roy,181,186 Bates,ErnestSutherland,325 BattleofGettysburg,The(1913),1 Bazin,André,8,309 Beard,Charles,12,33,61,65, 146–47,182,325 Beard,Mary,146–47,182 Becker,Carl,12–13,23,50,65,295, 304
435
436 Index
BeckySharp(1935),107 Beebe,Lucius,202–3 Behlmer,Rudy,242 BelleoftheNineties(1934),93,263 BelleStarr(1941),167–68 Benét,Rosemary,177 Benét,StephenVincent,28–29,34 Bennett,Constance,258–60,262 Beveridge,AlbertJ.,14,168,181,185 BigParade,The(1927),203,208,235 BigTrail,The(1930),20,31,36,37, 89,109,217,246,253 BillytheKid(1930),31,36,138,308 BillytheKid(1941),138 BirthofaNation,The(1915),1–5,28, 36,95,109,150,162–63 biographyandbiopics,13–14,57–59, 63–64,74–82,91–94,167–94, 197,255–57,264–65,267,304, 326 Blondell,Joan,202 Boehm,David,202 Boehnel,William,71 Bogart,Humphrey,135,219,296,298 Bombshell(1933),261–63,266,272, 282 Bonitzer,Pascal,10,11 Bonney,William,14,31,111 BonusArmy,200 Boone,Daniel,237–41 Bordwell,David,8–9,10,11 Bow,Clara,53,251–53,255–63,266, 272,275,340 Bowers,Claude,58,158,163 Bowers,John,253,274–75 Bowery,The(1935),105,170,282 Boynton,Percy,34 Brabin,Charles,37 Brackett,Charles,339 Branch,E.Douglas,34 Brice,Fanny,264,283 Brickell,Hershel,141–42 Bright,John,59,60,71,118
Broadway:historicalfilms,263–66, 298–306;historyofdecline, 280–84,296–97 BroadwayMelody(1929),263 Brown,Katharine,150,267 Brown,Roland,258 Bruce,Virginia,253,269–70,272 Buckner,Robert,117,118,134–37, 155–56,297,300–301,303–5, 317 BulletsorBallots(1936),84 Burke,Billie,264–65 Burke,Edwin,170 Burnett,W.R.,63,65–66,76–77 Burns,RobertElliot,198–201,205 Burns,WalterNoble,14,23,31,35, 60,62,64–6573–74,77,111,207 Buscombe,Edward,118 Bush,W.Stephen,2 Cagney,James,62,69,134,216, 219–20,222,298,301,305 Cagney,William,303 Cahiersducinéma,16–17,176,181, 234,309 CallHerSavage(1932),14,20,53 Campbell,Allan,268 Capone,Al,14,60–64,68,73–74, 197–99,206,235,325,340; andethnicity,66;andScarface, 75–82;asself-mademan,74–75; asveteran,62 Capra,Frank,193–94,319 CaptainJanuary(1935),170 CardinalRichelieu(1935),101 Carlson,Oliver,325 Carringer,Robert,318,320,323–24, 326 Carson,Robert,267–69,274 Castle,Irene,210–16,340 Castle,Vernon,210–16 Cather,Willa,47–48 Caton,StephenC.,18
Index 437
Cawelti,John,89 censorshipandhistoricalfilms,2, 19–20,68,71–73,80–81,89,128, 152,162,191–92,200–201,220, 222,242,325 Chambers,RobertW.,152 Chandlee,Harry,229–30 Chaplin,Charles,258,295–96 Chesnut,Mary,149,165 Cimarron(1929),14,32–34,48–49, 134 Cimarron(1931),14,19,20,21,22, 23,34–53,63,69,89–90,92, 94–95,99,101,103,108,109, 111–14,121,135–36,170,178, 253,269,313,315,327,331–35, 338,340 cinematographyashistoricaltool,69, 154–62,186–87,190,214,295, 331–33 CitizenKane(1941),11,21,309–10, 317–37 CivilWar,1–4,137,141–65;and historiography,2–4,141–48;and women’shistory,142–49 Clark,JohnMaurice,205–6,310 classicalHollywoodcinema,8–10,17, 18,23–24,59–60,122–23,143, 160–62,309–10 Clinton,Catherine,143 Cody,WilliamF.(a.k.a.BuffaloBill), 92–93,109–10,118 Cohan,GeorgeM.,298–306 Colbert,Claudette,211 Commager,HenrySteele,144–45 competitionoverhistoricalmaterial, 155,226–27 Condon,Frank,255 Conkle,E.P.(ProloguetoGlory),175 Conquerors,The(1932),20,51–53, 91,119,253 Cook,Sidney,172 Cooper,CourtneyRyley,35,91,110
Cooper,Gary,30,150–52,229,234, 273,292,339 Cooper,JamesFenimore,90,95–99, 146,241 CountofMonteCristo,The(1935),313 CoveredWagon,The(1923),5,17,28, 31,32,36,90,95,255 Cowan,Sam,229 Cowley,Malcolm,143–44,165 Crafton,Donald,17–19 Crane,Mack,261 Crawford,Joan,211,263 crimehistories,62–85 Cripps,Thomas,164 Cromwell,John,189 Crowther,Bosley,133,233,325–26 Cruze,James,254–55 Custen,GeorgeF.,13 DailyVariety,169 DanielBoone(1936),228 Daniels,Bebe,262 Davies,Marion,151,322 Davis,Bette,154–57,211,229 Davis,Britton,119–20 Davis,NatalieZemon,18 Davis,Owen,154,156 DeBra,Arthur,311 DeHavilland,Olivia,211 DelaMotte,Marguerite,253,274 Delehanty,Thornton,51,54,134, 170 DeMille,CecilB.,53,90,108–10, 113–16,118,131–33,255,281, 290,295–96,308–18,328,335 DeMille,William,255,279,281–82, 290,295–96 Depression:andhistoricalfilmmaking,21,48–49,52,89–90, 202,220,222;andeffecton studioproduction,21,32,51,89, 192–93,194 DestryRidesAgain(1932),89,138
438 Index
DestryRidesAgain(1939),138 DiamondJim(1935),282,283 Disraeli(1929),57–58 Dillinger,John,83–84,319 Dix,Richard,40,53 Dixon,Thomas,1,153 documentaryfilms,10,11 documentaryfootageinserts,5,10, 69–70,203,218,327 DodgeCity(1939),136–37,216,324 Donald,David,179–80,192 Donohue,Frank,218 DoorwaytoHell(1930),59–60, 62–63,267 Dr.Socrates(1935),83–84 DramaticLifeofAbrahamLincoln, The(1924),5,29,177,189–90 Druggan,Terry,68,72,197 DrumsalongtheMohawk(1936), 243–45 DrumsalongtheMohawk(1939), 222,228,241,244–46,324 DuBois,W.E.B.,158 Dudley,Marjorie,258 DuelintheSun(1947),338 Duff,Warren,134 Dunne,Irene,41,210 Dunne,Philip,100 Dunning,William,158 Edelman,Lou,227 Edmonds,WalterD.,243–45 educationalfeatures,7,307 Eisenstein,Sergei,9–10 Ellis,Edith,37 entertainmentcycle.SeeHollywood, historyof;Broadway establishmenthistory,3–4,113–14, 131–38,218–21,234,285,291, 310–17,327,329 Estabrook,Howard,20,22,30,34–37, 40–41,46,47,50–53,91,108, 112–14,182,317–18,327
EuropeanversusAmericanhistorical filmmaking,5 expansion,critiquesof,103–8, 128–31,134–35,333–34 Fairbanks,Douglas,255,266,267, 269,287 Falkenberg,Pamela,17,19,131–33 FallingStar(1937),282 FarewelltoArms,A(1932),204–5 FarmerTakesaWife,The(1935),170, 211 Faulkner,William,243 Faust,DrewGilpin,144,148–49 Fay,Frank,253,272,294 Faye,Alice,283,291–92,296 Ferber,Edna,14,23,32–35,40,48, 49,90–91,95,108,134,146,152, 318,327 Fergusson,Otis,209,265,325 Ferro,Marc,18,19 Fields,Joseph,91 Fighting69th,The(1939),23,225–28 filmcriticsandhistoricalcinema,2–3, 7,21,113–14,115–17,125–26, 136,170,188–89,221–22,265 FilmDaily,32,63,188 filmstudies:approachestohistorical cinema,15–17,319–20 filmicwritingofhistory,4,18,19, 23–24,329–31 FingerPoints,The(1931),65 Finkel,Abem,229,230 FirstWorldWar,47–48,55,72,73, 77,197–223,225–27;andAmericanversusEuropeanexperiences, 204–5;anddisillusionment,12, 55,65,198,203,205–6,225–26, 313,328 Fitzgerald,F.Scott,164 Fleming,Victor,30,160,170,256, 262 Floyd,“PrettyBoy,”85
Index 439
Flynn,Errol,297–98 Fonda,Henry,170,178,243,296,317 Ford,John,16–17,30,89,106, 115–26,178,181,183,185,189, 203,210,326 forewords,36,71,100–101,107, 109–10,120–22,127–28,131–32, 134,164–65,177–78,201,215, 219,223,225,227–28,230,233, 242–44,259,264–65,293 ForgottenFaces(1928),252 forgottenman,197,202–3 42ndStreet(1932),201–2,210,263 FourFeathers,The(1929),252,313 Fowler,Gene,258 Fox,PaulHervey,106–7 Francke,Caroline,261 Franklin,Dean,225 Freeman,DouglasSouthall,141–42, 145–46 FrontierMarshal(1934),89,111,138 FrontierMarshal(1939),138 frontiermyth,34,47,267–68,281, 333–34 Furthman,Jules,262 Gable,Clark,258,273,296 GabrielovertheWhiteHouse(1933), 331 gangstergenre,7,59–60,218–23;and theFirstWorldWar,72–74,77, 83,219–20;andpopularbiographies,60,62–64,68,77,83;and westernmyths,73 Garbo,Greta,253,258,269,272 Gardner,Sarah,143–44 Garrett,OliverH.P.,164 Gassner,John,126–27 Gaynor,Janet,170,211,258,273–74 genre,8,17,21,42,59–60,89–90, 108 GentlemanJim(1942),337 Geraghty,Tom,255
Geronimo,119–22 Gibney,Sheridan,199,201 Gilbert,John,203,253,266,269–70, 272,275,298 GirloftheGoldenWest,The(1915), 109 GirloftheGoldenWest,The(1930),30 GirloftheGoldenWest,The(1938), 21,93 Gish,Lillian,3,287–88 GiveMeLiberty(1936),307 Glasgow,Ellen,148 Glasmon,Kubec,59,68,71 GoldDiggersof1933,The(1933),22, 201–3,208–10,263 GoldIsWhereYouFindIt(1938),134 Goldwyn,Samuel,226,339 GonewiththeWind(1936),14, 141–50,153–54,159–60,164–65 GonewiththeWind(1939),14,17, 19,20,143,149–50,155,158–65, 213,222,252,295,308,324,338, 340 GorgeousHussy,The(1936),208,211, 241,264 Goulding,Edmund,158 GrapesofWrath,The(1940),85,317 GreatMeadow,The(1931),37,109, 241 GreatProfile,The(1940),296–97 GreatZiegfeld,The(1936),20,217, 241,264–66,283 GreatWarfilmsandhistoriography. SeeFirstWorldWar Grey,Zane,40 Grierson,John,18 Griffith,D.W.,1–7,11–12,23,27, 28–29,60,150,162–63,169, 174,258,266,281,287–88,290, 295–96,298 Gunning,Tom,10 Hackett,Francis,2
440 Index
Hall,Mordaunt,29,54,203,255 Haller,Ernie,160,165 Hammerstein,Oscar,II,211–13,300 Hampton,Benjamin,257,260,280, 293 Hansen,Miriam,9 Harlow,Jean,211,261–63,272–73,275 Harris,Ray,173 Hart,WilliamS.,35,267 HarveyGirls,The(1945),338 Haver,Ronald,274 Hawks,Howard,14,76,78,229–30,234 Haycox,Ernest,118–20,131 Hays,Will,71,80–81,162,307–9; andmoratoriumongangster films,83–84,208,217 Hearst,George,321 Hearst,WilliamRandolph,309, 319–33 Hecht,Ben,60,76–77,118,164–65, 319 Heerman,Victor,151 Hellinger,Mark,216–21 HellsAngels(1930),34,75 Hemingway,Ernest,204 Hepburn,Katharine,210,260–61,296 Herndon,William,179–80,183, 191–93 HeroesforSale(1933),203,308 heroism,12,29,74–75,284–85 Hertz,Emmanuel,187 HisGirlFriday(1940),14,331 historians’attitudestowardhistoricalfilms,4,11–12,14–17,34, 110–12,120,299–300,316–17 historicalcycle,beginningof,54;end of,21,283,297–98,309,317–18, 337–40 historicalfiction,5,10–11,18,90–91, 95–99,244–45;andwomen, 13–14,143–49 historicalfilm:criteria,4–5,9–11, 13–14,17,21–24,54,234,263
historiography,1–5,10,11–13,14,18, 49–51,96–98,120,144–49,218, 265–66,311–14,329 Hitchcock,Henry,147 Hollingshead,Gordon“Holly,”175, 307 Hollywood(1923),254–55,272 Hollywood,historyof,14,280–83.See alsosilentera HollywoodBoulevard(1936),266–67, 272 HollywoodCavalcade(1939),11,14, 22,279–80,286–97,316 HollywoodReporter,113,138,169, 188 HollywoodSpeaks(1932),259–60 Holmes,Brown,199,288 Howard,Sidney,150,152,159–60, 162–65,317 HowardsofVirginia,The(1940),246 Hudson’sBay(1940),247,299–300 Hughes,Howard,34,60,75–76,80, 84,197,227 Hughes,Rupert,254 Huston,John,55,118,229–30,339 IAmaFugitivefromaChainGang (1932),22,198–202,208–9,308 ideology,8,15–17,18,45,234,303–4 imperialism,44–45,322 InOldChicago(1938),20,243,245, 283,286,294,338 Informer,The(1935),117–18 intertitles,2,5–7,9–10,36–38,41–42, 43–44,48,52–53,69,92,109–10, 112,121,127–29,134–36,136, 151–52,162–65,177–78,200, 212–14,218,230–31,259,263, 268–69,293,297,326–28.See alsoforewords interracialheroes/heroinesinAmericanliterature,97–99,103–5, 153–54,159–60;inclassicalHol-
Index 441
lywoodcinema,19–20,40–41, 50,53,99–100,105–8,158–62 Intolerance(1916),109,118 IronHorse,The(1924),30,90,115, 118,308 Isenberg,Michael,11–12,204–5 Jackson,HelenHunt,90,103–8,146 Jacobs,Lewis,209,297–81,295 James,Jesse,andFrankJames,84, 128–30,135 JazzSinger,The(1927),11,220,286, 288,293–94 JesseJames(1939),11,14,22,119, 127–30,222,243,286 Jezebel(1933),154,156 Jezebel(1938),14,20,23,153–58, 211,313,315 Johnson,Julian,138,288–91 Johnson,Mary,153 Johnson,Nunnally,6,20,85,108, 118,126–31,163,171–73,227, 243,317,319 Johnsrud,Harold,261–62 JolsonSingsAgain(1949),338 JolsonStory,The(1946),338 Josephson,Julien,229,338 journalismandhistory,14,60,66,82, 327,329–30 journalistsasscreenwriters,68,76, 127,175,216;aspopularhistorians,62–77,142,145–46,237–38 Journey’sEnd(1931),204,217 Kael,Pauline,319–20,326 Keaton,Buster,292 Keeler,Ruby,202 KittyFoyle(1940),215–16 Klein,Wally,134 KlondikeAnnie(1936),93,263 KnuteRockne,AllAmerican(1940),299 Koch,Howard,229–30 Koenig,William,247
Korda,Alexander,18 KuKluxKlan,2,129,162–63 LadywithRedHair,The(1940),288 Lake,Franky,68,197 Lake,Stuart,94,110–13,136,226 LaMarr,Barbara,290 Lambert,E.P.,101–2 LandofLiberty(1939,1941),308–17, 328,335,338 Lardner,Ring,Jr.,268 Lasky,Jesse,228–9,234 Lasky,Jesse,Jr.,131,314 LastGangster,The(1937),6–7 LastoftheMohicans,The(1826),90, 95–100 LastoftheMohicans,The(1909),99 LastoftheMohicans,The(1920),6,99 LastoftheMohicans,The(1936),22, 99–103,114,152,241 LastParade,The(1931),73 LateGeorgeApley,The(1947),338 LawandOrder(1932),89 Lawrence,T.E.,236 lawsuitsandslander,53,55,256–57, 271–72.Seealsocensorship Leahy,AgnesBrand,151 Lears,T.J.Jackson,239 LeBaron,William,20,34,51, 112–13,131,318,327 Lee,RobertN.,63 LeRoy,Mervyn,202 Lévi-Strauss,Claude,15,42 Levien,Sonia,118,243–44,282 Lewis,Lloyd,171 LightsofNewYork,The(1928),286 LillianRussell(1940),283–85,296, 317 Lincoln,Abraham,53–54,131,137, 163,167–94,232,237,256,315, 324,333,339–40;assassination, 171–72;biographiesandbiopics,169–71,174–94;earlylife,
442 Index
16,179–80;andCivilWar,16, 168,181;historiography,16,29, 167–69,180,186–87;monuments,179–80,232 LincolnintheWhiteHouse(1939), 175,188,194 Lissauer,Dr.Herman,7,133,175, 225 LittleCaesar(1931),59–60,63–64, 66,76–77,84,92,217,221 LittleWomen(1933),91,151,173, 252,313 LittlestRebel,The(1935),152–53, 169,339 Lloyd,Frank,91,110,112–14,118 Lloyd,Harold,260,272 Lockwood,Frank,110 Long,Hal,128 Loos,Anita,94,118 Lord,Robert,218 Luce,Henry,220,327 Lundberg,Ferdinand,321,324–25 Macaulay,Richard,218 MacDonald,Jeanette,93–94,210, 317 MacEwan,Walter,136–27,201 Macgowan,Kenneth,20,173–74, 247,299 MacKenzie,Aeneas,136–37 MacLeod,WilliamChristie,35,119 Macpherson,Jeannie,108,118,131, 308,311–13 MagnificentAmbersons,The(1942), 335–37 MagnificentDoll(1945),215,338 Mahin,JohnLee,262 MaidofSalem(1937),211,308 ManWhoDared,The(1934),106 ManhattanMelodrama(1934), 82–83,203,252 Mankiewicz,Herman,310,319–35 March,Fredric,274
Markson,Ben,202,258 Marxistculturalcriticism,16,17, 132–33 MaryofScotland(1936),210 Mason,SarahY.,151 Massey,Raymond,189–90,192–93 Mayer,LouisB.,51,76,80,252,256, 264,269–70,287–88,322 Mazzanovich,Anton,119–20 McCormick,John,253 McCrea,Joel,114 McDaniel,Hattie,164 McGuire,WilliamAnthony,264, 283–84 McPherson,Tara,143 McQueen,Butterfly,164 McWilliams,Carey,33 Meredith,Bess,243 mestizas,103–8 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer(MGM Studios),6–7,83,94,118,208, 242–43,247,264–65,270 MightyBarnum,The(1934),21 militaryhistory,145–46 Miller,Marilyn,264,266 Miller,SetonI.,77,118 miscegenation,19–20,152 Misejewski,Linda,265 Miskin,Leo,221–22 Mitchell,Margaret,14,23,141–50, 152–55,158–60,164–65,243–45, 285;researchby,141–42,146 mixed-raceAmericans,40–41,95–96, 98–101,105,107–8 Moore,Colleen,253 Moore,SamuelTaylor,197,207,236 MorningGlory(1933),260–61,282 Morton,SamuelJ.“Nails,”62,71, 77–78,197–98 Moses,Vivian,261 MotherWoreTights(1947),338 MotionPictureHerald,130 Mouthpiece,The(1932),53,55
Index 443
MovieCrazy(1932),260 Mr.Everyman(Becker),12–13,50, 330 Mr.SmithGoestoWashington(1939), 193–94 Mudd,Samuel,84,127,171–72 mulattas,98–99,154–58 Mumford,Lewis,47 Munby,Jonathan,59,76 Muni,Paul,77,84,296 Murfin,Jane,258 myth,8,15,16–17,49,89–90,95–96, 116,178,284–85;andclassical Hollywoodcinema,8–10,16–17
OfHumanHearts(1938),174 OklahomaKid,The(1939),22,23, 134–36,222 Oklahoma:landrushof1889,39–40, 44 OldIronsides(1925),255 OnlytheBrave(1930),150–51,234, 252 OnlyYesterday(1934),308 Operator13(1934),151–52,234,308, 313,322 originalscreenplays,171–73,283–98, 323–28 Osagetribes,47
Nash,Gerald,44 NativeAmericans,5,40,47,97–99 NaughtyMarietta(1935),93–94 Neilan,Marshall“Mickey,”253,256, 287–89 Nevins,Allan,13,14,304 NewWesternHistory,50–51,120 NewYorkTimes,114,115–17,133 Niblo,Fred,Jr.,225 Nichols,Dudley,17,20,105,111, 115–27,178,317,326 Nilsson,GeorgeW.,307 1920s.Seepostwarera,historyof Normand,Mabel,253,256,266,281, 287–88 NorthwestPassage(1940),21,189, 228,241–43,246 Novick,Peter,228 NowI’llTell(1934),83–84 Nugent,FrankS.,7,84,115–17,129– 30,133,135,137,209,215–16, 221–22,247,271,317,326 Nute,GraceLee,299–300
Page,ThomasNelson,153 Paramore,EdwardE.,134,151 ParamountStudios,94,108–9,111, 251–52 Parker,Dorothy,268 Parkman,Francis,116–17 Pascal,Ernest,288,292 Pasley,Fred,14,60,65,74–77,235 Patterson,FrancesTaylor,89,114 Patton,JamesWelch,148 Patullo,George,237 Paxton,Frederic,117 PerilsofPauline,The(1947),338 Perkins,V.F.,335 Pershing,GeneralJohn,236–37 Peterson,H.C.,207 PetrifiedForest,The(1936),84–85 Phillips,Ulrich,3,158 Photoplay,257,259,269 Pickett,LaSalleCorbell,148 Pickford,Mary,255,263,266, 273–74,287–88 Plainsman,The(1936),109–10, 113–14,127,132–33,234,308 plantationepicsandmyth,143,153 Plunkett,Walter,159,165,211,213 Polk,Oscar,164 PonyExpress(1925),255
Oakley,Annie,91–93,118 O’Bannion,Dion,64,68 objectivity,2–3,11–12,15,64–66,73, 110,128,228,320,328
444 Index
popularhistorians,13–14,31,61–62, 108–13,119–20,131 PortraitofJennie(1948),338 postwarera,historyof,55,59–61, 65–67,71,198–203,216–23 Potamkin,HarryAlan,29 Potter,H.C.,208,215 Powdermaker,Hortense,8 Powell,Dick,202 Powell,Paul,34–35 pressbooks,68,156,234,273 Pressnel,Robert,258 PrideoftheYankees(1942),299,316, 337–38 PrisonerofSharkIsland,The(1936), 14,22,118,127,163,171–73, 285,308,313 PrisonerofZenda,The(1937),252,266 PrivateLifeofHenryVIII,The(1933),18 ProductionCodeAdministration (PCA),19–20,68,76,80–82, 191,208,263–64,274,282,308 Prohibition,55,71,82,205,220.See alsopostwarera,historyof propaganda,205–7,227–28,233–34, 248 PublicEnemy,The(1931),14,19,22, 59,68–73,75–77,82–84,197, 208,211,217,221,272 publicitycampaigns,20,63,80,93, 112,125–28,136,156–57,188, 201,221,233,234,273,283, 315–17,326 Pulitzer,Joseph,321 Pyron,DardenAsbury,145 Quarberg,Lincoln,80 race:andAmericanhistory,1–5,12, 20;andCivilWar,143 racialambiguityandcinema,20,103, 107,143,153–58.Seealsomulattasandmestizas
Raine,NormanReilly,118,135,225, 227 Ramona(1884),103–8 Ramona(1936),14,17,20,22,103–8, 114,116,152,308,315,340 Ramsaye,Terry,186,188,251,257, 269,280,285,295,320 Randall,JamesG.,146,148,168–69 Raphaelson,Samson,289 reception,boxoffice,21,54–55,189, 216 reception,critical.Seeindividual critics Reconstruction,1–4,128–29,161–65, 171;andhistoriography,1–4, 163–64 RedSkin(1929),40 Reid,Wallace,290 relativism,12–13,65,295 remakes,138 researchbibliographies,20,35,102, 109,112,156,171–72,187,225; libraries,5–7,101–3,112,114, 133–34;techniques,101–2,114, 225,230,299–300 ReturnofFrankJames,The(1940), 11,138 reuseofoldfootage,11,138,292, 294,327–28 revisionisthistory,24,33,35,50–51, 53–54,66,114,119,207,220–21, 257,315 revolutionaryheroes,228,232–33, 235–48 Richardson,Frances,101 Ritter,CharlesRudolph,271 RKOStudios,20,22,32,48–49,91, 94,111,210,252–53,317–18, 327 RoaringTwenties,The(1939),18,197, 217–23,225,316,331 Roberts,Kenneth,242 Robinson,EdwardG.,6–7,54,75,84
Index 445
Rockett,A.L.,190 Rogers,Cameron,167 Rogers,Ginger,209–16,318 Rogers,Will,105,264 Roosevelt,FranklinD.,220,301 Roosevelt,Theodore,38–39,42,46,110 RoseofWashingtonSquare,The (1939),283,296 Rosen,Philip,17–18,218 Rosenstone,RobertA.,17–19 Rosten,Leo,21,118,247 Rotha,Paul,11,51 Rothstein,Arnold,83 RoughRiders,45 RoxieHart(1942),215,229 RoyalFamilyofBroadway,The(1930), 263–64,274 Ruggles,Wesley,35–37,42,46,47, 49,51,113,118 RugglesofRedGap(1935),169 Russell,Lillian,263,283–84 Salt,Waldo,208 SanFrancisco(1936),93–94,116, 217,241 Sandburg,Carl,168,181,185,192 SantaFeTrail,The(1940),137,193 Sarris,Andrew,309 Sayre,Joel,91 Scarface(1932),14,17,19,59,75–82, 83,197,227,308,325 ScarletPimpernel,The(1935),14 Schaefer,George,20,242,318,327, 337 Schallert,Edwin,203,233,305 Schatz,Thomas,8,23 Schulberg,B.P.,251,254,256 Schulberg,Budd,268 screenwritersandhistoricalcinema, 6–7,19,112,117,169–70;in 1930s,6–7,20,117–18,125–27, 286,338;duringsilentera,5–6, 22
SecondWorldWarpropaganda,234, 241–42,244–45,303–6 SecretSix,The(1931),83 Seitz,GeorgeB.,118 Seldes,Gilbert,20,27,118 self-reflexivity,42 Selznick,DavidO.,6,20,22,23, 51,52,119,143,150,152,155, 158–65,251–53,255–62,266–77, 282,285–87,291,308,317,324 Selznick,LewisJ.,252–53,266 SelznickInternationalPictures,252, 266,271 Sennett,Mack,287–88,290,292 SergeantYork(1941),17,20,228–35, 338 Seymour,James,202 SheDoneHimWrong(1933),93, 263,282 Shearer,Norma,268 Sherman,Lowell,259–60 Sherman,Richard,212,282 Sherman,WilliamT.:andMarchto Sea,147–48,159,199 Sherwood,Robert,5,27,28,49,54– 55,81–82,84–85,168,188–89, 191–94,254–55,318,325 ShineOn,HarvestMoon(1943),338 ShopwornAngel(1928),34,204 ShopwornAngel(1938),209–9 Shotwell,JamesT.,309–12,314, 316–17 ShowBoat(1929),27 ShowBoat(1936),152,211,308 ShowPeople(1928),255 silentera:historicalfilmmaking,1–6, 22,203–4;historiesof,251–77 Simkins,FrancisButler,148 SilverDollar(1932),20,53–54,308, 321,339 Sisters,The(1938),211 Skeyhill,Tom,229,237–40 SlaveShip(1937),127
446 Index
Slosson,PrestonWilliam,60–61 Slotkin,Richard,15,42,45–46,96 Small,Edward,90,95,241,294 SoRedtheRose(1935),21,152,308, 313,315 SoulsforSale(1923),254 soundandhistoricalfilmmaking,6–7, 8–10,28–29,36,60,76,260 Spanish-AmericanWar,44–45, 321–22,328,333–34 SquawMan,The(1931),109,281 St.Johns,AdelaRogers,252,256–58, 266 Stagecoach(1939),17,20,89, 115–27,178,326 Stanfield,Peter,90 Stanwyck,Barbara,93,210,253,272, 296,319 StarisBorn,A(1937),20,257, 266–77,282,291,295 Stenn,David,257 Stewart,Garrett,329 Stiller,Mauritz,272 StoryofAlexanderGrahamBell,The (1939),21,173–4,216,243,245, 286,294,339 StoryofVernonandIreneCastle,The (1939),209–16 Stromberg,Hunt,262–63 structuralismandpoststructuralism, 8–9,12,320 Sullavan,Margaret,208,211 superwestern,21,90,117,133 SusanLennox—HerFallandRise (1931),258 Susman,Warren,17–18 Sutter’sGold(1936),21,321 Swanberg,W.A.,321 Swanson,Gloria,253,255,262,266, 288 Sweet,Blanche,287 Tabor,H.A.W.(YatesMartin),53
TaleofTwoCities,A(1935),253,266, 313 Temple,Shirley,6,152–53,169,210, 272 TennesseeJohnson(1942),21,336 Texans,The(1938),234 textsuperimpositions.Seeintertitles Thalberg,Irving,254,274,288 ThatCertainWoman(1937),85 Thew,Harvey,53–54,68 TheyDiedwithTheirBootsOn (1941),137 TheyGaveHimaGun(1937),203,208 ThisIsMyAffair(1937),173,207 Thompson,Kristin,8,10 Thorp,MargaretFarrand,279,281 ThreeBadMen(1926),115 ThreeonaMatch(1932),308 Time,108,129,147 Tracy,Spencer,288,296 Trail,Armitage,76–77 Trotti,Lamar,17,20,91,105–8,111, 150,168,173–88,227,244–45 Tumbleweeds(1925),35 Turner,FrederickJackson,12,18,33, 38–39,42,44,46,50,117,228, 204 Tuska,John,89 TwentiethCentury–Fox,6,17,91, 101,117,169–70,279–80 Twist,John,91 UncertainGlory(1942),297 UncleTom’sCabin(1903),168 Underworld(1927),76 UnionPacific(1939),19,114,131–33, 193 Valentino,Rudolph,257,281,290 VanDoren,Dorothy,34,49 VanDyke,W.S.,203 VanishingAmerican,The(1925),5, 36,40–41,204,308,315
Index 447
Variety,29,32,57,69,201,246, 259–60,270,337–38 veterans:andDepression,55,198– 205,219 VirginiaCity(1940),137,193 Virginian,The(1914),109 Virginian,The(1929),30,31,34,36 voice-overnarration,10–11,218–19, 301,314,316 VonStroheim,Erich,258,281 Vorkapich,Slavko,53,208 Wald,Jerry,218 Wallis,HalB.,20,117,134,138,158, 201,217,219–20,304,317,324 Walsh,Raoul,32,37 Wanger,Walter,119 WarnerBrothersStudios,6–7,23,57, 85,117,133–34,156–57,219–23, 226,280,289,297–99,303–4 Warner,Harry,227 Warner,Jack,84,137,154–55,217, 226 Warshow,Robert,59 Watts,Richard,20,29,49,54,58 Wecter,Dixon,231,235,284–85 Weiss,Hymie,64,68 Welles,Orson,23,307,309–10, 318–37 Wellman,Paul,119 Wellman,William,52–53,69,72–73, 203,267–70,272 WellsFargo(1937),21,22,95, 110–14,116,127 West,Mae,90,93–94,210,263–64, 282 Westerner,The(1940),226 westernhistory,33–34,35,41,50 westerns,29–30,31–32,42–43,89– 114,115–38;andmyth,30–31, 89–90,116 WestofthePecos(1934),226 WhatPriceGlory(1926),204,208,217
WhatPriceHollywood?(1932),251, 254,256–60,266,268,272 White,Hayden,18,19 Wilder,Billy,339 Williams,WilliamAppleman,322 Wilson(1944),207,338 Wilson,Woodrow,2,4,205–6;public disillusionmentwithpoliciesof, 204–8 Wister,Owen,29 Wolfson,P.J.,242 women:andbiography,91–95, 283–84;andhistoricalcinema, 13–14,91–95,209–16,315;and oppositiontoCivilWar,144;and theWest,48;ashistorians,103–5, 142–48 Woodward,C.Vann,158 WordsandMusic(1948),338 WorldMovesOn,The(1934),11,203 Wright,Will,89,116 Wyler,William,158 YankeeDoodleDandy(1942),228, 280,297–306,337–38 yellowjournalism,321–23,334 York,Alvin,229,235–40,298 Yost,Dorothy,212–13 Young,Loretta,107 Young,Stark,144,152 YoungMr.Lincoln(1939),14,15–17, 19,21,174–89,191,193–94,241, 246,286,339 Zanuck,DarrylF.,6,14,17,20,22, 23–24,53–55,57,68,69,73, 75,84–85,90–91,101,105–8, 117,127–31,133,135–37,150, 152–53,167–89,199–202,207–8, 226–27,229,235,243–46,254, 256,279,282,283–98,308,317, 324 Ziegfeld,Florenz,264–66,282