DOCSLIB.ORG

Sheehan on Barbas, 'The First Lady of Hollywood: a Biography of Louella Parsons'

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sheehan on Barbas, 'The First Lady of Hollywood: a Biography of Louella Parsons' JHistory Sheehan on Barbas, 'The First Lady of Hollywood: A Biography of Louella Parsons' Review published on Thursday, November 1, 2007 Samantha Barbas. The First Lady of Hollywood: A Biography of Louella Parsons. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. viii + 417 pp. $35.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-520-24213-5; $17.95 (paper), ISBN 978-0-520-24985-1. Reviewed by Steven Sheehan (Department of History, University of Wisconsin-Fox Valley) Published on Jhistory (November, 2007) American Gossip Samantha Barbas has written a comprehensive biography of the infamous Hollywood gossip columnist Louella Parsons. Offering neither an apology nor a hatchet job of this controversial figure, the author succeeds in separating truth from legend to chronicle Parsons' life and to demonstrate the important role she played in the rise of America's contemporary celebrity culture. Along the way, Barbas takes the reader on a behind-the-scenes tour of Hollywood in its Golden Age, offers insight into the history of gender and sexuality in the twentieth century, and analyzes important connections between the histories of cinema and journalism. Louella Parsons was born Louella Oettinger in Freeport, Illinois, in 1881. As a teenager, she moved with her family to Dixon, Illinois. She was a voracious reader and aspired toward a career in writing. She married John Parsons in 1905 and moved with him to Burlington, Iowa, where she gave birth to a girl named Harriet. He embarked on an extramarital affair. Unable to fit into Burlington society and abandoned by her husband, Louella moved to Chicago with her daughter in 1910. Parsons’ only pleasure in Burlington had been the local movie theater, and by the time she arrived in Chicago, she was "thoroughly immersed in movie fan culture" (p. 31). She parlayed that interest into a career that spanned half a century. In 1911 she became the chief scenario editor at Chicago's Essanay studios, gaining a foothold in the movie industry and an income that allowed her to file for divorce. She left Essanay to write a movie column from an insider's perspective at the Chicago Herald and also entered into a second mismatched marriage. In 1917 she moved to New York where she wrote a film column for the daily Telegraph and became a significant player in the city's film circles while her second marriage dissolved. In the mid 1920s, she jumped across town to theAmerican , one of the flagship papers in William Randolph Heart's publishing empire. She finally landed in Los Angeles in 1926 to write for Hearst's Examiner. Through that paper and Hearst's syndication service, she reached more than six million readers per day. For the next thirty years, she used her column and several radio programs to rule as "the First Lady of Hollywood," shaping the fates of film stars, movies, and entire studios by bestowing her blessings, chastising, panning, or ignoring, all according to personal tastes, friendships, and animosities. She finally found a fitting romantic match, marrying Hollywood doctor Harry Martin in 1930. Parsons maintained few close personal relationships beyond those with her husband and Citation: H-Net Reviews. Sheehan on Barbas, 'The First Lady of Hollywood: A Biography of Louella Parsons'. JHistory. 03-14-2014. https://networks.h-net.org/node/14542/reviews/14891/sheehan-barbas-first-lady-hollywood-biography-louella-parsons Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. 1 JHistory daughter; however, much of Hollywood's film community offered tribute out of respect for her power. Yet her power did not go unchallenged. Time publisher Henry Luce harbored a personal dislike for Louella and gladly used his own publications to attack one of Hearst's star columnists. Much of Hollywood welcomed the emergence of Hedda Hopper--another notable gossip columnist--in the late 1930s as a rival who might curb Parsons's power. Loeulla's influence and audience waned in the 1950s during the decline of the studio system she had helped to foster and from which her power had derived. The book's scholarly narration of a complex life that has generally been distorted by myth and outright fabrication constitutes one of its major strengths. Previous accounts, such as George Eels' Hedda and Louella (1972), focus on her public persona. Parsons also appears as a bit player in a number of gossipy star biographies, where she is usually caricatured as a brassy, conniving intruder. Barbas visits many familiar sources, such as Parsons's own published work and the biographies of William Randolph Hearst, Marion Davies, and other notables with whom she associated. To cut through the legend, the author also exploits an impressive array of more obscure sources, including the Dixon, Illinois newspaper, divorce records, oral histories, and, with great success, archived private and professional correspondence. Thus, she makes definitive statements about events such as Parsons' legendary feud with Hedda Hopper (real animosity there) and her alleged role in hiding a murder committed by Hearst (no murder there). This analysis of Parsons' life also offers insight into the history of gender and sexuality in the twentieth century. Parsons was one of a handful of "girl reporters" working at major American newspapers in the early twentieth century. Because the early movies were seen as a passing, feminine fad, women who were deemed unsuitable for serious reporting were allowed to cover the cinema. Parsons seized on this meager opportunity to become a prominent newspaperwoman. She was also an outspoken advocate for women's rights in the 1920s, particularly on the subject of professional opportunity for women in journalism. She helped found, and briefly presided over, the New York Women's Newspaper Club, a networking and advocacy organization for the city's women journalists. Through word and deed, she helped blaze a trail that many female reporters soon followed. Yet at the same time, Parsons reinforced gender and sexual stereotypes in her columns and radio programs. Cutting her teeth during cinema's scandalous early years, Parsons believed that the best way to establish the legitimacy of the fledgling industry and to undermine censorship campaigns was to maintain a squeaky-clean image. As a result, her columns usually presented film stars as models of middle-class domesticity. When stars did not live up to that image, or, more importantly, when they refused to allow Louella to maintain the illusion that they lived up to it, she could be ruthless. For instance, Parsons played a significant role in torpedoing Ingrid Bergman's Hollywood career when the star refused to hide or apologize for her extramarital affair. The book provides an important case study of the close relationship between journalists and Hollywood's elite during the studio era. Studio executives depended on Parsons not merely to promote their products, but also to help maintain their control over the industry. In particular, Parsons' ability to build or destroy individual stars made her an important ally in maintaining studio Citation: H-Net Reviews. Sheehan on Barbas, 'The First Lady of Hollywood: A Biography of Louella Parsons'. JHistory. 03-14-2014. https://networks.h-net.org/node/14542/reviews/14891/sheehan-barbas-first-lady-hollywood-biography-louella-parsons Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. 2 JHistory control over talent. In turn, Parsons relied on the studio system's power structure to maintain her position as the "First Lady of Hollywood." Most notably, for many years she benefited from a forty- eight-hour exclusive on all studio-generated news that executives bestowed upon her to cultivate positive press. Finally, this biography augments our understanding of the development of America's celebrity culture. Newspapers carried celebrity news before the advent of the movies, largely focusing on the private lives of stage stars and politicians. Other venues, particularly movie fan magazines, carried news of film stars. "But by writing a daily column exclusively devoted to motion pictures and by extending the existing celebrity journalism tradition to film stars," Barbas argues, "Louella pioneered a new journalistic format and started a new chapter in the history of American celebrity" (p. 44). Ultimately, this book demonstrates that Parsons' career did not merely coincide with the film industry's emergence and growth, but that Parsons played an instrumental role in establishing our cult of celebrity and ensuring that its saints and priests would reside in Hollywood. While traditional accounts of the art and business of Hollywood rightfully focus on the pioneering roles of such men as director D. W. Griffith and studio head Louis B. Mayer, this book demonstrates that any analysis of Hollywood as a cultural phenomenon must account for Louella Parsons. Louella outlived her husband, Hearst, and most of the stars with whom she had mingled. She passed her final years in a Southern California convalescent home, a relic from a bygone era. In the New Hollywood of the 1960s and 1970s "the lines of power within the entertainment industry had become at once more intricate and diffuse" (p. 342). No longer could a select group of studio heads and gossip columnists control film talent or mold public opinion. When she died in 1972, few people noticed or cared. Ironically, she was forgotten by a world she had helped to create. This biography helps us remember Parsons, and in many ways, to know her for the first time. It also sheds light on the genesis of our contemporary celebrity-and-scandal-obsessed popular culture. It is an important work for those interested in the history of American celebrity culture, gender, Hollywood, or journalism, or for anyone who enjoys a fascinating read. Printable Version: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=13851 Citation: Steven Sheehan.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1942-01-09 [P 10]
    Radio DA IS OFFICERS OUT OUR WAY By J. B. Williams OUR BOARDING HOUSE .. with . Major HooPie Today’s Programs i-*" ^ ' r kuow whut yo’re im stiffVs N/well ,x don't M WE WANT TO TIP YEAH, WHEN ¥THANKS— A- LAUGH IU’ AT / DLL ADMIT Y TIME, COWBOSSI BLAME THE YOu'<^f IET PROMOTIONS TIMERS! JULIET—THERE'S H, HE'S BROKE ¥ ALWAYS BEEN AN V WMFD 1400 KC X LOOK LIKE A HOG I SPENT TWO OLD OFF, ^ Wilmington HERDER MONTHS IM IITHIMKI’D A WILD ANIMAL IN THE M HE SETS EASY TARGET Dance. AM’I’M A-GOIM’ ) </( TOR Mjf FRIDAY, JAN. 9 3:30—Let’s AW SOOWER 3:55—Transradio News. T’STAY THETAWAY, TILL /TH1 BRUSH / j HOUSE/—IF JAKE HITS A BEAR <6?TOUCH/— MUST BE A Majors Martin, Kendall Ad- TWO CAYS LOOK LIKE ^ jjp 7:30—Family Altar, Rev. J. A. Sulli- 4:00—Club Matinee. COWBOYS SPEWD MORE \ / YOU FOR A SILLY STREAKT van. 4:15—Monitor Views the News. TIME IU TH’ BRESH IW TOWU— / A REAL- LOAN,PRETENdXtRAPFOR }| w-fH 5V. Lee. vanced To Rank Of \ 7:45—Red, White and Blue Network. 4:30—Piano Ramblings—H. TRYIN)’ TO BE COWBOVS NIOVJ IE YOU SECTIOM HAWD YOU'RE HARD OF HEAR- MEN, INHERITED FROM News 4:45—Club Matinee—A. P. News. | j J[ 8:00—European Roundup. THAW IN) CABARETS I SIT OUE O' THAW A AND START TALKING ) WOMEN fA 8:10— News from our 5:00—Adventure Stories. Lieutenant-Colonel |NG GRANDPA,WHO jHWq Capital.
    [Show full text]
  • The Talk of the Town Continues…
    The Talk of the Town continues… “Kay Thompson was a human dynamo. My brothers and I were constantly swept up by her brilliance. Sam Irvin has captured all of this in his incredible book. I know you will thoroughly enjoy reading it.” – DON WILLIAMS, OF KAY THOMPSON & THE WILLIAMS BROTHERS “It’s an amazing book! Sam Irvin has captured Ms. T. to a T. I just re-read it and liked it even better the second time around.” – DICK WILLIAMS, OF KAY THOMPSON & THE WILLIAMS BROTHERS “To me, Kay was the Statue of Liberty. I couldn’t imagine how a book could do her justice but, by golly, Sam Irvin has done it. You won’t be able to put it down.” – BEA WAIN, OF KAY THOMPSON’S RHYTHM SINGERS “Kay was the hottest thing that ever hit the town and one of the most captivating women I’ve ever met in my life. There’ll never be another one like her, that’s for sure. A thorough examination of her astounding life was long overdue and I can’t imagine a better portrait than the one Sam Irvin has written. Heaven.” – JULIE WILSON “This fabulous Kay Thompson book totally captured her marvelous enthusiasm and talent and I’m delighted to be a part of it. I adore the cover with enchanting Eloise and the great picture of Kay in all her intense spirit!” – PATRICE MUNSEL “Thank you, Sam, for bringing Kay so richly and awesomely ‘back to life.’ Adventuring with Kay through your exciting book is like time-traveling through an incredible century of showbiz.” – EVELYN RUDIE, STAR OF PLAYHOUSE 90: ELOISE “At Metro… she scared the shit out of me! At Paramount… while shooting Funny Face… I got to know and love her.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    NOTES INTRODUCTION 1. Nathanael West, The Day of the Locust (New York: Bantam, 1959), 131. 2. West, Locust, 130. 3. For recent scholarship on fandom, see Henry Jenkins, Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture (New York: Routledge, 1992); John Fiske, Understanding Popular Culture (New York: Routledge, 1995); Jackie Stacey, Star Gazing (New York: Routledge, 1994); Janice Radway, Reading the Romance (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1991); Joshua Gam- son, Claims to Fame: Celebrity in Contemporary America (Berkeley: Univer- sity of California Press, 1994); Georganne Scheiner, “The Deanna Durbin Devotees,” in Generations of Youth, ed. Joe Austin and Michael Nevin Willard (New York: New York University Press, 1998); Lisa Lewis, ed. The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media (New York: Routledge, 1993); Cheryl Harris and Alison Alexander, eds., Theorizing Fandom: Fans, Subculture, Identity (Creekskill, N.J.: Hampton Press, 1998). 4. According to historian Daniel Boorstin, we demand the mass media’s simulated realities because they fulfill our insatiable desire for glamour and excitement. To cultural commentator Richard Schickel, they create an “illusion of intimacy,” a sense of security and connection in a society of strangers. Ian Mitroff and Warren Bennis have gone as far as to claim that Americans are living in a self-induced state of unreality. “We are now so close to creating electronic images of any existing or imaginary person, place, or thing . so that a viewer cannot tell whether ...theimagesare real or not,” they wrote in 1989. At the root of this passion for images, they claim, is a desire for stability and control: “If men cannot control the realities with which they are faced, then they will invent unrealities over which they can maintain control.” In other words, according to these authors, we seek and create aural and visual illusions—television, movies, recorded music, computers—because they compensate for the inadequacies of contemporary society.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of the Films of Billy Wilder
    je Museum of Modern Art November 1964 53 Street, New York, N.Y. 10019 Circle 5-8900 Cable: Modernart THE MUSEUM OF MODERN ART FILM LIBRARY PRESENTS THE FILMS OF BILLY WILDER Dec. 13.16 MENSCHEN AM SONNTAG (PEOPLE ON SUNDAY). I929. Robert Siodmak's cele­ brated study of proletarian life gave Wilder hie first taste of film­ making. (George Eastman House) 55 minutes. No English titles. Dec. IT-19 EMIL UND DIE DETEKTIVE. 1951. Small boys carry on psychological war­ fare against a crook in this Gerhard Lamprecht comedy for which Wilder helped write the script. (The Museum of Modern Art) 70 minutes. No English titles. Dec. 20-23 NINOTCHKA. 1939. Ernst Lubitsch's ironic satire on East-West relations just before World War II, in which Garbo gave her most delicately articulated performance with Melvyn Douglas, and for which Wilder, with Charles Brackett and Walter Reisch, wrote the script. Based on the story by Melchior Lengyel. (M-G-M) 110 minutes. Dec. 2k~26 MIDNIGHT. 1959. One of the most completely and purposely ridiculous examples of the era of screwball comedy, with a powerhouse of a cast, including Claudette Colbert, Don Ameche and John Barrymore, and Wilder and Brackett*s brilliant non-sequitur script. (MCA) 9U minutes. Dec. 27-30 HOLD BACK THE DAWN. 19*11. The plight of "stateless persons" in the late '30s and early 'UOs, with Olivia de Havllland, romantically yet convincingly dramatised by Wilder and Brackett. Directed by Mitchell Leisen. (MCA) 115 minutes. Dec. 31* THE MAJOR AND THE MINOR. 19te. This, the first film Wilder directed, Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • Motion Picture Collection
    ARIZONA HISTORICAL SOCIETY 949 East Second Street Library and Archives Tucson, AZ 85719 (520) 617-1157 [email protected] PC 090 Motion picture photograph collection, ca. 1914-1971 (bulk 1940s-1950s) DESCRIPTION Photographs of actors, scenes and sets from various movies, most filmed in Arizona. The largest part of the collection is taken of the filming of the movie “Arizona” including set construction, views behind-the-scenes, cameras, stage sets, equipment, and movie scenes. There are photographs of Jean Arthur, William Holden, and Lionel Banks. The premiere was attended by Hedda Hopper, Rita Hayworth, Melvyn Douglas, Fay Wray, Clarence Buddington Kelland, and many others. There are also photographs of the filming of “Junior Bonner,” “The Gay Desperado,” “The Three Musketeers,” and “Rio Lobo.” The “Gay Desperado” scenes include views of a Tucson street, possibly Meyer Avenue. Scenes from “Junior Bonner” include Prescott streets, Steve McQueen, Ida Lupino, Sam Peckinpah, and Robert Preston. Photographs of Earl Haley include images of Navajo Indian actors, Harry Truman, Gov. Howard Pyle, and director Howard Hawks. 3 boxes, 2 linear ft. HISTORICAL NOTE Old Tucson Movie Studio was built in 1940 as the stage set for the movie “Arizona.” For additional information about movies filmed in southern Arizona, see The Motion Picture History of Southern Arizona and Old Tucson (1912-1983) by Linwood C. Thompson, Call No. 791.43 T473. ACQUISITION These materials were donated by various people including George Chambers, Jack Van Ryder, Lester Ruffner, Merrill Woodmansee, Ann-Eve Mansfeld Johnson, Carol Clarke and Earl Haley and created in an artifical collection for improved access.
    [Show full text]
  • Pandora-Eve-Ava: Albert Lewin's Making of a “Secret
    PANDORA-EVE-AVA: ALBERT LEWIN’S MAKING OF A “SECRET GODDESS” Almut-Barbara Renger Introduction The myth of the primordial woman, the artificially fabricated Pandora, first related in the early Greek poetry of Hesiod, has proven extremely influential in the European history of culture, ideas, literature, and art from antiquity to the present day. Not only did the mythical figure itself undergo numerous refunctionalizations, but, in a striking manner, partic- ular elements of the narrative in the Theogony (Theogonia) and in Works and Days (Opera et dies) – for example, the jar, which would later be con- ceived as a box – also took on a life of their own and found their place in ever new cultural contexts. Having been drawn out from the “plot” (in the Aristotelian sense of μῦθος), these elements formed separate strands of reception that at times interfered with each other and at other times diverged. In the twentieth century such myth-elements also developed a distinc- tive dynamic of their own in film. Albert Lewin’s Pandora and the Flying Dutchman (1951) offers a particularly original conception of the Pandora myth by interweaving its elements with the legend of the Flying Dutch- man and plotting it into a story that takes place around 1930.1 It is the story of a young American woman, Pandora Reynolds, “bold and beautiful, desired by every man who met her” – so goes the original trailer of 1951, which opens with some introductory remarks about glamour by Hedda Hopper.2 Lewin’s intermingling of the Pandora myth and the Dutch legend in a love story of the 1950s is in many ways bold and original.
    [Show full text]
  • Trumbo Quand Les « Dix D’Hollywood » Faisaient Leur Cinéma Julie Vaillancourt
    Document generated on 09/25/2021 4:24 p.m. Séquences : la revue de cinéma Trumbo Quand les « Dix d’Hollywood » faisaient leur cinéma Julie Vaillancourt Endorphine André Turpin Number 300, January 2016 URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/80922ac See table of contents Publisher(s) La revue Séquences Inc. ISSN 0037-2412 (print) 1923-5100 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this review Vaillancourt, J. (2016). Review of [Trumbo : quand les « Dix d’Hollywood » faisaient leur cinéma]. Séquences : la revue de cinéma, (300), 30–30. Tous droits réservés © La revue Séquences Inc., 2016 This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit. Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal, Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is to promote and disseminate research. https://www.erudit.org/en/ 30 | Jay ROACH Trumbo Quand les « Dix d’Hollywood » faisaient leur cinéma De ses débuts à la réalisation avec des comédies populaires, dont la série Austin Powers et The Dinner – l’indigeste remake du Dîner de cons –, Jay Roach réalise, en 2012, le téléfilm biographique Game Change, sur Sarah Palin, pour lequel il est récompensé par la Directors Guild of America Awards. Avec Trumbo, il réalise une fois de plus un drame biographique qui conjugue histoire politique et cinématographique : celle des « Dix d’Hollywood ». Parmi les noms de cette liste noire, le scénariste Dalton Trumbo, accusé d’être communiste, sera emprisonné, puis interdit de pratiquer son métier.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cat's Meow
    THE CAT’S MEOW PRODUCTION NOTES Directed by Peter Bogdanovich SYNOPSIS From award-winning screenwriter Steven Peros and acclaimed director Peter Bogdanovich comes The Cat’s Meow, an extraordinary look at a fateful excursion of “fun and frolic” aboard William Randolph Hearst’s private yacht in November of 1924 that brought together some of the century’s best-known personalities and resulted in a still-unsolved, hushed-up killing. As Hearst and his lover actress Marion Davies set sail from San Pedro Harbor early one Saturday morning, hosting a small group that includes the brilliant but self-absorbed Charlie Chaplin, film pioneer Thomas Ince preoccupied with his recent financial setbacks, ambitious gossip columnist Louella Parsons, and the eccentric British Victorian novelist Elinor Glyn, it quickly becomes clear that although witty repartee and double entendre are the order of the day, deceit and deception are also on the menu. Everyone, it seems, has a secret agenda: Ince, whose pioneering work in defining the role of the film producer has been favorably compared to D.W. Griffith’s contributions to directing, is determined to seal a partnership with Hearst’s Cosmopolitan Pictures despite W.R.’s seeming lack of interest; New York-based film critic Louella Parsons has her eye on a transfer to the west coast where she can cover the film industry more intimately; Ince’s lover, actress Margaret Livingston, no longer cares to keep their affair a secret; Hearst himself suspects that his paramour Davies has been unfaithful with the legendary comic Chaplin; and Chaplin indeed schemes to steal away the beautiful actress from the richest man in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • No Oscar for the Oscar? Behind Hollywood's Walk of Greed
    Networking Knowledge 7(4) All About Oscar No Oscar for the Oscar? Behind Hollywood’s Walk of Greed ELIZABETH CASTALDO LUNDEN, Stockholm University ABSTRACT In 1966 the popular interest in the Academy Awards propelled Paramount Pictures to produce The Oscar (Embassy Pictures-Paramount Pictures, 1966), a film based on the homonymous novel by Richard Sale. The Oscar tells the story of an unscrupulous actor willing to do anything in his power to obtain the golden statuette, regardless of whom he has to take down along the way. Building up on fantasies of social mobility, we see the protagonist (Frankie) display his vanity, arrogance and greed to create a less than likeable character whose only hope to put his career back on track lies in obtaining the precious statuette. The movie intends to be a sneak peek behind the scenes of the biggest award ceremony, but also behind the lifestyle of the Hollywood elites, their glory and their misery as part of the Hollywood disposal machinery. Despite not being financed or officially supported by the Academy, the film intertwines elements of fiction and reality by using real footage of the event, and featuring several contemporary representatives of the movie industry such as Edith Head, Hedda Hopper, Frank and Nancy Sinatra, playing cameo roles, adding up to the inter- textual capacities of the story. Head’s participation was particularly exploited for the promotion of the film, taking advantage of her position at Paramount, her status as a multiple winner, and her role as a fashion consultant for the Academy Awards. This paper is an analytical account of the film’s production process.
    [Show full text]
  • CITIZEN KANE Assignment
    INTRODUCTION TO FILM CITIZEN KANE NAME PERIOD _____________ BASED ON INFORMATION FROM THE TEXT: 1. WHO IS CREDITED WITH PRODUCING THE FILM, CITIZEN KANE? 2. WHAT YEAR WAS THE FILM, CITIZEN KANE, RELEASED? 3. WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OMINOUS MUSIC SCORE FOR THE FILM, CITIZEN KANE? 4. WHAT WAS THE NAME OF KANE’S ESTATE? 5. WHAT DOES KANE WHISPER AS THE GLASS BUBBLE BURSTS? 6. WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE BLARING NEWSREEL? 7. WITH WHAT COMPANY DID ORSON WELLES ACT AND DIRECT? 8. IN WHICH COMPANY WAS HE A FOUNDER? 9. WHAT STORY DID ORSON WELLES USE FOR A RADIO DRAMA? 10. THIS RADIO BROADCAST WAS SO REALISTIC THAT ? 11. WHAT AWARD DID ORSON WELLES RECEIVE IN 1975? 12. OF WHAT NEWSPAPER DID WILLIAM RANDOLPH HEARST FIRST BECOME PROPRIETOR? 13. IN 1903, WHO DID WILLIAM RANDOLPH HEARST MARRY? 14. WHO WAS A JOURNALISTIC INSPIRATION TO WILLIAM RANDOLPH HEARST? 15. WHERE DID HEARST BUILD HIS CASTLE? 16. WHAT DID HEARST DO TO UPSET THE LEFT WING IN AMERICA? 17. WITH WHAT IS HEARST’S NAME SYNONYMOUS? 18. WHAT WAS HEARST’S RESPONSE TO ILLUSTRATOR FREDERIC REMINGTON IN HAVANA? 19. WHO WAS HEARST’S GREATEST LOVE? 20. WHO DIED ABOARD WILLIAM RANDOLPH HEARST’S YACHT? 21. WHO WAS HEARST INTENDING TO SHOOT? 22. WHO MADE A DEAL WITH HEARST AND WAS SWORN TO SECRECY CONCERNING THE INCIDENT? 23. WHAT DID GOSSIP COLUMNIST HEDDA HOPPER SAY ABOUT THE MOVIE, CITIZEN KANE? 24. WHO MAY HAVE HAD A HAND IN THE SHOOTING? 25. HOW DID THIS WOMAN MYSTERIOUSLY DIE? NO TRESPASSING That tarnished sign on a forbidding black wire fence is the first thing we see in Orson Welles' Citizen Kane, the rather formidable beginning of an opening sequence that's still as electrifying as any in the history of movies.
    [Show full text]
  • CATHOLIC AMERICANISM at the MOVIES, 1930- 1947 Ann Mairín
    ABSTRACT Title of Document: MASS CULTURE: CATHOLIC AMERICANISM AT THE MOVIES, 1930 - 1947 Ann Mairín Hanlon , Master of Arts , 2007 Directed By: Professor James B. Gilbert , Department of History Between 1930 and 1947 (and ultimately, to 1967) , the Hollywood film industry adhered to a set of rules, known as the Production Code, that set boundaries on the content of movies produced and distributed by the major studios. Influenced by Catholic theology, and written by a Catholic lay person an d a Catholic priest, the Production Code and the films of the Production Code -era have been mined by historians for evidence of Catholic censorship in Hollywood. This thesis explores another side the relationship between Hollywood and the Church, exploring the productive relationship between these major twentieth -century institutions, and the cultural negotiations that resulted in the representation of Catholicism as the American religion of the silver screen. MASS CULTURE: CATHOLIC AMERICANISM AT THE MOVIES, 1930 -1947 By Ann Mairín Hanlon . Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts 2007 Advisory Committee: Professor James B. Gilbert , Chair Professor Saverio Giovacchini Professor Arthur M. Eckstein © Copyright by Ann Mairín Hanlon 2007 Dedication To my Mother and my Grandmother. Another county heard from. ii Acknowledgements I could not have written this thesis without the patience, insight, encouragement, a nd enthusiasm of my advisor, James Gilbert. Saverio Giovacchini tried to steer me clear of some of my unexamined assumptions about the Hollyw ood of the Production Code era, and provided encouragement when the going was slow.
    [Show full text]
  • 10243.Prologue.Pdf
    Prologue September 1941 In hollywood it was a difficult time. Though film attendance was at an all-time high—that year eighty-five million tickets were sold each week—the major studios were under attack. The war in Europe and Asia had led to a decline in foreign markets, the House Un-American Activities Com- mittee was investigating the alleged involvement of several prominent actors with communism, and a Senate commission accused Hollywood of war- mongering by making films that promoted U.S. intervention in the overseas conflict. Moreover, the Federal Communications Commission had allowed regular commercial television broadcasting to begin on July 1, 1941, panick- ing those in Hollywood who saw the new medium as potentially formidable competition.1 Louella, too, had struggled that year. In the spring, Orson Welles’s Citizen Kane, a scathing attack on her employer, William Randolph Hearst, had been released in theaters across the nation. Americans watched Welles’s onscreen portrayal of a manipulative, megalomaniacal Hearst, and they read in na- tional publications about Louella’s conniving attempts to suppress the film. The New York Times and Newsweek described Louella as a vicious opponent of free speech who used her power to carry out her employer’s tyrannical wishes. Shortly afterward, the Screen Actors’ Guild launched an attack on her, publicly condemning her refusal to pay actors who appeared on her radio show and calling her an enemy of the film industry. Though Louella’s world- wide readership of nearly twenty million was more than triple that of her pri- mary rival, Hedda Hopper, pundits predicted that it would not be long until Hopper surpassed her and became the new first lady of Hollywood.
    [Show full text]