Friday, 13 June 2008

2008 FRAMELINE32—35mm Projections

As many of you are no doubt aware, the recent fire at Universal Studios destroyed many of the circulation prints used to satisfy festival requests. Fortunately, most of the elements for these films were not injured but a certain lag time will be required to strike new prints for eventual distribution. So keep your fingers crossed that a new print of Bound will be struck in time for its Frameline screening.

With that necessary caveat in mind, Frameline graciously provided The Evening Class the list of films from Frameline32 that will be projected in 35mm.

Big Eden
Blood of Yingzhou District, The
Bonne Mère
Bramadero
Country Life
Dolls
Drifting Flowers
Fairytale of Kathmandu
Happenstance
In the High School
Karmen Geï
La León
Lloyd Neck
Mala Noche
No Bikini
Pages Of A Girl
Pitstop
Saturn In Opposition
Silver Road
Systolic/Diastolic
Word Is Out
XXY
Yes Nurse, No Nurse
You, Me and Him

Tuesday, 10 June 2008

HOLLYWOOD ASIAN: PHILIP AHN AND THE POLITICS OF CROSS-ETHNIC PERFORMANCE—The Evening Class Interview With Hye Seung Chung

I dedicate this entry to Adam Hartzell who—aware of my own experiences with cross-ethnic performance—strongly recommended I read Hye Seung Chung's biography on Philip Ahn; likewise providing an introduction to Professor Chung for this Evening Class interview. My heartfelt thanks, Adam.


* * *

Hye Seung Chung received her B.A. in English Literature from Ewha Woman's University (Seoul, South Korea) in 1994, her M.A. in Cinema Studies at the College of Staten Island, C.U.N.Y. in 1999, and her Ph.D. in Film and Television from the University of California, Los Angeles in 2004. Her areas of specialization include: classical and contemporary Hollywood cinema, race and multiculturalism in American popular culture, feminist and postcolonial film theories, Asian American media, East Asian/Korean cinema, and global Cold War cultures.

In Fall 2008 she will be joining the American Studies faculty at the University of Hawaii, Manoa. Previously, Professor Chung taught in the Department of Asian Languages and Cultures at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the Department of Comparative Literature at Hamilton College.

Chung is the author of Hollywood Asian: Philip Ahn and the Politics of Cross-Ethnic Performance (Temple University Press, 2006). As the first book-length study of Korean identities in American cinema and television, this volume investigates the career of Philip Ahn (1905-1978), a pioneering Asian American screen icon as well as the son of celebrated Korean nationalist Dosan Ahn Chang Ho. Far more complex than a conventional star biography, this transnational study bridges American and Korean film histories; suggests new theoretical paradigms with which to address cross-ethnic performance and Asian American spectatorship; and explores the role of American foreign policies in the construction of Hollywood's "Oriental genres" from the 1930s to the 1950s. Drawing upon a wide range of archival documents from the actor's personal papers and studio memos to files of federal government agencies, Professor Chung's book addresses a number of significant historical, theoretical, and critical issues pertaining to different disciplines including film and media studies, cultural studies, Asian American studies, and Korean studies. Since its publication, Hollywood Asian has received positive reviews in Library Journal, Asian Week, International Journal of Communication, Choice, Korean Quarterly, Journal of American History, Journal of Popular Culture, and Pacific Historical Review.

In addition to her book, Professor Chung's scholarship on Korean cinema has been published in such journals and anthologies as Asian Cinema, Film and Philosophy, South Korean Golden Age Melodrama, New Korean Cinema, and Seoul Searching. Her most recent writings on Asian American identities in contemporary television programs will appear in the forthcoming books Grace under Pressure: Grey's Anatomy Uncovered (edited by Cynthia Burkhead and Hillary Robson) and Screwball Television: Critical Perspectives on Gilmore Girls (edited by David Scott Diffrient and David Lavery). A lifelong fan of classical Hollywood cinema, she is now nurturing a passion for American television shows such as The Wire, Lost, Weeds, Nip/Tuck, and Big Love and hopes to teach a course exploring these and other Quality TV series in the future.

* * *

Like so many others of my generation, I first became exposed to Philip Ahn through his performance as Master Kan on the television series Kung Fu. The series provided exposure not only to Philip Ahn, but also to Keye Luke (the blind venerable sage Master Po who was fond of calling David Carradine's character "Grasshopper"). American culture at that time was struggling with its own spiritual misgivings. The Beatles were off gleaning enlightenment at the feet of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Hermann Hesse's Siddhartha had become a countercultural touchstone, LSD usage spiked the sales of Joseph Campbell's The Hero With A Thousand Faces, and Americans turned hungrily to the Orient for wisdom to temper their corrupt materialistic ways. Tapping into this zeitgeist, Kung Fu provided a heady blend of the Old West infused with Buddhist martial arts even as it maintained the racist practices of Hollywood's studio era of—as Professor Chung defines them—"the politics of role segregation (the prohibition against Asians playing whites while the reverse was accepted) and role stratification (in which leading roles are reserved for whites, leaving only character parts open to Asians)." (2006:xvi) In effect, though Carradine's character was half-white, half-Chinese, it was still contentiously "yellowface."

With a certain chagrin, I remember being nicknamed "Grasshopper" when I attended Arkansas College; the only out-of-town student in that small Presbyterian college. Rather than assert a Chicano identity, or come out of the closet as Queer, I settled for passing as Asian. Later, on television, I caught several of Philip Ahn's performances as villainous Japanese military officers in WWII dramas where he invariably tortured American soldiers. Much later I finally caught up to some of his earliest roles as romantic lead for Anna May Wong. Thus, working backwards, I had assessed the career of Philip Ahn, and was grateful for Hye Seung Chung's informed research to appreciate Ahn's career within its proper temporal perspective.

When I asked how she had come to focus on Philip Ahn, Hye Seung Chung admitted the route had likewise been indirect. "I was born and raised in South Korea," she answered, "not very far from Dosan Ahn Chang Ho Park. You might know that Dosan Ahn Chang Ho—Philip Ahn's father—was a Korean national hero in the independence movement against Japanese colonization. Philip Ahn's father and mother are buried together in this memorial park. Both their remains were moved to this park when it was established in the '70s."

Though she had heard of Philip Ahn, she didn't know much about him. Her main exposure was through his performance as Lu Wan, the old man in Douglas Sirk's 1957 film Battle Hymn. As possibly the most famous film about the Korean War, Koreans had effectively canonized Battle Hymn and—while she was growing up in the '80s—the film was shown each June 25th, commemorating the day the Korean War broke out. Hye Seung Chung saw that film repeatedly and—though she somehow knew that Philip Ahn was the son of Dosan Ahn Chang Ho—she didn't know much else about his family history or how Philip Ahn became a Hollywood actor. As she grew older, however, her interest became piqued. In the back of her mind she kept thinking about this Hollywood actor of Korean descent who was the son of Korea's national hero and who had—some say—the added distinction of being the first Korean American born in the United States.

During her years at UCLA when she was studying for her Ph.D., Hye Seung took a course in postcolonial studies and at that time remembered Philip Ahn. Electing to fulfill a class assignment by writing a 20-page paper on him, she researched him online and came across a biography that interested her because it was the first time she realized Philip Ahn had appeared as a romantic lead opposite Anna May Wong in such 1930s vehicles as Daughter of Shanghai (1937) and King of Chinatown (1939). She then became fascinated in how Philip Ahn got his start in Hollywood and how he progressed into his notoriety of the WWII period. Hye Seung discovered Ahn was widely known by the WWII generation, by older Americans in their 60s and 70s, who remembered him as "one of those bad guys" in WWII propaganda films. Though these performances were obviously hideous stereotypes of Japanese military officers and spies, Hye Seung was startled to uncover interviews with Philip Ahn wherein he expressed his pleasure in performing these roles, precisely because they were his way of contributing to his father's legacy. His father died in 1938 before the Korean liberation in 1945.

Unlike Sessue Hayakawa who played a lot of Japanese villains during the silent period or Philip Ahn's close friend Anna May Wong who likewise played many villainous Dragon Ladies during the silent period and early sound period, Philip Ahn's experience is unique for the subversive pleasure he derived from his cross-ethnic performances. As a Korean, they made a political statement against Japanese colonization. Hye Seung wagered Ahn's stance was possible because he was playing roles distant from his own ethnicity. At least 98% of his roles called for him to be Chinese or Japanese. He had the requisite emotional distance to somehow connect his cross-ethnic performances in propaganda films with the Korean independence cause. At this juncture, Hye Seung realized this fascinating anomaly could not be done justice in a 20-page paper. She tracked down Philip Ahn's surviving sister, who was over 90 years old, in the San Fernando Valley and—through her—was provided access to the family archives. She was also fortunate to have access to Ahn's film and television performances through the UCLA archives. "I could not have written this book had I not studied in L.A.," Hye Seung emphasized.

Along with the political import of Philip Ahn's cross-ethnic performances and his own subversive pleasure in performing these roles, in her book Hye Seung has expanded this politicization to include an examination of the pleasures of spectatorial resistance, especially from Asian American audiences. She has structured her book into two basic parts; the first being "Asian American Acts: Performance and Spectatorship" and the second "Oriental Genres, 1930s to 1950s."

What grabbed me right off was her position regarding shifting the critical anchoring of ethnic identity away from—as she has written—"questions of representation (image as source of meaning) to those of performance (actor as enunciative agent) and Asian American spectatorship." The value in that shift being that familiar representation-based models emphasize victimization and alienation, whereas Hye Seung favors "a multifaceted approach that highlights the intricacies and internal tensions' in the construction and reception of mainstream images." (2006:xv)

Hye Seung argues that Asian American actors and spectators are "capable of negotiating, reinterpreting, or resisting misrepresentations and stereotypes of hegemonic texts without necessarily forgoing the benefits of employment (in the case of actors) or dispensing with the pleasure of participation (in the case of audiences)" and she deploys "the concept of cross-ethnic performativity as an overarching theoretical paradigm to address the subversive potential of these hermeneutic acts." (2006:xvi) I queried what had led her to focus on the political agency of such "hermeneutic acts" of performance and spectatorship?

"My performative approach derives from my own evolution," she admitted. She came to the United States because she was a fan of Hollywood classic cinema and loved it so much—"more than what you see at the cinema these days"—that she wanted to study it in depth. She had long been interested in the period of the 1930s and '40s, and the 1950s to a lesser extent. She knew these films intimately and felt comfortable with them. Naturally, after coming to the United States and becoming a serious film scholar, as an Asian and as a woman she experienced conflicts with the hideous stereotypes of Dragon Ladies and Fu Manchus.

As she began to negotiate these conflicts, she realized that the criticism of stereotypes had already been done by several scholars, especially Eugene Franklin Wong [who authored the seminal 1978 study On Visual Media Racism: Asians in the American Motion Pictures, likewise derived from his Ph.D. dissertation]. Following Wong's study, in the '80s and '90s several scholars criticized mainstream Hollywood images from an Asian American perspective. Though Hye Seung recognized the importance of this rich and varied work, she nonetheless felt it was unfair to criticize Anna May Wong, Philip Ahn, or Richard Loo for having taken on these roles and perpetuating these unattractive stereotypes . She allowed that they had little choice. Further, had it not been for them, had they not been Asian American pioneers, all of those roles would have been played by whites in yellow face, well into the '50s and '60s when yellow face finally became problematic. Hye Seung sought out a different theoretical model to evaluate these early performances and she took Philip Ahn's admitted pleasure in playing stereotypes as a cue. This is when she shifted from representation to performance as a means to finesse Asian American agency.

Hye Seung observed how Philip Ahn had adapted stereotypes for his own political purposes. Because he was of Korean descent and because there was such animosity between Korea and Japan, especially during the colonial period, and coming from an anti-colonialist background as the son of a national hero, Ahn willingly didn't identify with the roles he was asked to play. Another important factor was that—at that time—there was no concept of "Asian American"; that was a concept created during the Civil Rights era. Ahn could neatly identify himself as Chinese or Japanese or Korean. During WWII and the shameful internment of Japanese American citizens in the camps, white Americans wouldn't accept Asian groups as Americans. Even if they were born in America, second generation Asian Americans were still considered as foreigners. But because he was Korean, Philip Ahn escaped internment and his professional opportunities to portray Japanese and Chinese roles increased. For American audiences, it was difficult to recognize Ahn as a Korean playing Japanese villains; but Korean audiences, on the other hand, found his performances "kind of fun and ironic." For them it was amusing to hear him speak in Korean while playing Japanese or Chinese roles. Thus a layer of linguistic sophistication became applicable to Ahn's performances by savvy audiences. Chinese and Japanese audiences knew he was not speaking their language and Koreans found it amusing that he spoke their language so clumsily, having grown up in the United States.

These distinctions were confirmed whenever Hye Seung played a particular episode of the television series I Spy where Philip Ahn guest-starred as an old Chinese man. In a certain scene he's supposed to be speaking Chinese. When he told the producers that he couldn't speak Chinese, they encouraged him to go ahead and speak Korean because it all sounded alike and no one would know the difference. Whenever Hye Seung played this episode to audiences of Korean descent, or even Chinese descent, they laughed out loud; but, when she played the episode to mainstream white American audiences, nobody laughed because they didn't catch anything funny. It interested her to play the episode to different audiences to hear such different reactions.

Admitting that "we all get a little bit offended by this racist representation", Hye Seung nonetheless cautions against getting too caught up in the offense, especially because of the history of Asian immigration. There are so many different ethnicities affected by the Japanese colonialism of the first part of the 20th century. There's still anger and resentment among older generations of Chinese about the atrocities perpetrated during Japan's colonial period. It's important to distinguish these positions. Hye Seung wanted to move beyond the stereotype critique as a way to underscore the inherent limitations of identity politics. At the same time, she felt it very important to recuperate the agency of these actors, as well as the spectators. Though admittedly there are independent films made from the perspective of Asian American filmmakers; they are in a minority and usually suffer a limited theatrical release. They're infrequently shown in academic settings or in coastal cities like San Francisco, New York and Los Angeles where there are large Asian American communities. Thus, there's a value to rescuing Asian American performances in classic films and to recuperate the agency of Asian American actors and spectators.

I was hard-pressed to think of any other actor beside Philip Ahn who could so perfectly embody Hye Seung's thesis, precisely because of his political biography and his diasporic position as a Korean American actor. I asked her if she could think of anyone else who effectively used ethnic masquerade? She immediately recalled John Frankenheimer's The Manchurian Candidate (1962) where Khigh Dhiegh played Dr. Yen Lo. Though uncertain of his actual ethnicity, Dhiegh often appeared as Asian in many films, sometimes Chinese or Mongolian. We checked IMdb and determined Dhiegh was of Anglo-Egyptian-Sudanese ancestry. The Manchurian Candidate likewise featured Henry Silva—of Spanish-Sicilian descent—playing Chunjin, a Korean. Many actors have played different ethnic roles, Hye Seung acknowledged, Anthony Quinn—a Mexican-American—played Zorba the Greek, as well as Irish and white characters. Egyptian Omar Sharif also played different ethnicities, including white. There's no shortage of examples of ethnic masquerade.

But in terms of East Asia, in actors of Chinese or Japanese or Korean descent, Philip Ahn remains the most interesting case for being fluent in ethnic masquerade. Nancy Kwan was a Chinese American, and Sessue Hayakawa was a Japanese American, and it was easier for audiences to distinguish them by their last names. People were (are?) more familiar with these two countries, as opposed to Korea. In the '30s and '40s especially, most people didn't even know where Korea was located.

Having detailed the problem of trying to create a homogenous Asian identity because of the various ethnic groups; I offered the same could be said about trying to create a homogenous Chicano/Latino identity, again because of the many ethnic groups immigrating to the U.S. from their respective countries. I asked Hye Seung if she knew of anyone working with that material? She responded that her advisor Chon Noriega has edited seven or eight books on Latino representation and she recalled Adrienne L. McLean's recent study on Rita Hayworth and how her career was composed by "passing" for white. Hayworth rarely played Latin American roles. Hye Seung expressed that she would like to see more studies done like McLean's Being Rita Hayworth: Labor, Identity, and Hollywood Stardom (Rutgers University Press, 2004).

Because she was of Korean heritage, and because she had access to a lot of Korean-language materials, Hye Seung was able to accomplish her research on Philip Ahn; but, not having the same kind of access to Chinese-language or Japanese-language materials, she encouraged it would be great if somebody else could follow up on that. Returning to the Hayworth study, Hye Seung admitted her growing interest in "white face"—where Latin American actors or Mexican American Chicano/a actors or actresses with light skin can play white parts—as a theoretic reversal of the paradigm.

I have frequently quoted Joseph Campbell's assertion that it is through the performance of everyday tasks that an individual's radiance shines through. Philip Ahn seems as suitable an example of this truth as anyone. In her book, Hye Seung quoted John Flaus as singling out Philip Ahn "as a screen performer endowed with so-called lamprotes (a Greek term meaning splendor or brilliance). As a condition contrary to Walter Benjamin's notion of 'aura,' the patina-like radiance of Ahn's myriad screen roles outshines any one particular performance—a quality that can be better appreciated with cumulative and repeated viewing (what Flaus calls 'buffing'). As Flaus puts it, 'No matter how clichéd the characters they play and the dialogue they must say, they give enough of themselves to transcend, however briefly, mere professionalism. It is a joy to see them again; I feel a sense of welcome. For the short time they are on the screen their performance qualifies the narrative, rather than vice versa. These, and others, are hard-nosed, time-worn professionals who can become endeared to us just for "doing their job," as they merge into our personal map of the American industry.' " (2006:xxi, fn. omitted.) Flaus's concept of lamphrotic endowment reminded me of Alexander Nemerov's focus on the iconic stature of supporting characters in his study on Val Lewton, Icons of Grief. Both scholars observe that this lamphrotic quality emanates from steady, hardworking professionals whose constancy endears them to audiences over the years. Philip Ahn certainly attests to that constancy. I asked Hye Seung if she could describe how Philip Ahn specifically inflected that quality?

She felt that was a very interesting and good question and recalled that—when she arrived in L.A. and began to meet film scholars—most of them didn't know who Philip Ahn was, especially the younger generation film scholars. But if you talked to older film buffs in their 50s-70s, they all remember and love Philip Ahn. His roles were really small, often lasting a mere few minutes. She remembered watching a two-hour film just to see Philip Ahn for a few minutes because it remained fascinating for her to see him in whatever capacity. Ahn's sister Susan described him as a very charismatic person. He attended USC for two years but dropped out to become an actor; still, the dean of USC observed that—when Ahn came to the U.S.—he encountered the usual obstacles that a minority student would but he just "threw the obstacles away." He was always one of the most popular students at USC. He worked very well with white actors.

He also had a soothing paternal effect on others, which accounts for why he often played fathers, which Hye Seung writes about in the concluding chapter of her book. He's probably most remembered as Master Kan in Kung Fu. He had a positive impact on actors. Philip Ahn's brother told Hye Seung that—when Philip Ahn appeared with Frank Sinatra—Sinatra, though an established singer, was a newbie in Hollywood and Philip Ahn gave Sinatra good advice. He and Sinatra got along very well and Sinatra became a regular customer at Philip Ahn's restaurant in Ahn's later years in the '60s and '70s. He also had a good interaction with director Cecil B. DeMille who was known for losing his temper and not getting along well with actors. As a minority, Philip Ahn developed a gregarious persona that fit in very well in a white environment. He got along pleasantly with white actors and actresses. Philip Ahn was everybody's friend on the set and Hye Seung conjectures that might be one of the reasons he survived professionally. Whereas David Carradine was difficult on the set of Kung Fu, and the studio had a lot of problems reining him in, Philip Ahn was a friendly rock on the set. People could depend on him. So there was that part to his particular radiance.

But there was something else about him, Hye Seung commented, "something almost campy." There was the rumor that Ahn was homosexual and—as an aside—Hye Seung recounted that she received a couple of hate mails from the gay community for not establishing that Ahn was homosexual in her book. But how could you, I asked her, when there was no direct evidence or admission on his part?

Exactly, Hye Seung agreed. Maybe he was bisexual? She didn't know. There are conflicting stories and the bottom line is that he never identified his sexuality. Besides, that was not the concern of her book. But she can say in retrospect that there was something in his performances you could say was campy. The way he carried himself. Almost a comedic quality. In some of his minor roles there's something campy about how he plays the sidekick to the masculine male hero. It's somewhat appealing for being a little less aggressive than most masculine portrayals at the time. His was a different kind of masculinity. Even before there was such a thing as the new "softer" masculinities that became a big thing in the '70s, if you look at Ahn's performances in the '30-'50s—except, of course, for the WWII propaganda films where he plays an outright villain—there's a softer, kinder masculinity that somehow appealed to everyone.

Hye Seung lays this out intriguingly in her book: "The doubling of the two actors—Rock Hudson and Philip Ahn—provides an opportunity to tease out queer readings of their respective masculinities. Battle Hymn was produced at a time when Rock Hudson's own sexual identity was in crisis. His marriage to Phyllis Gates—allegedly arranged by the studio—was near dissolution, culminating in divorce in 1958, one year after the film's release. The marital and psychological crisis of the closeted, gay man is subtly allegorized in Hudson's screen performance as Hess, who forges more profound and meaningful relationships with men than with women. Hudson's Hess runs away from his complacent small-town life and pregnant wife to return to the militaristic world of intense homosocial bonding. Although heterosexual seductions continuously stalk Hess in the form of Miss Yang, an attractive woman apparently in love with him, he seems completely unresponsive and oblivious. Rather, Hudson/Hess enjoys engaging in spiritually fulfilling conversations with James Edwards/Lieutenant Maples and Ahn/Lu Wan, whose religious devotion and biblical wisdom reinstate his own faltering beliefs. He also consoles his two-war buddy and wingman Don DeFore/Captain Skidmore, at his deathbed—a lengthy, tearful farewell that can be identified as the film's one true 'love scene.' The contrasting yet mirroring masculinity of Hudson and Ahn is particularly intriguing precisely because both actors' offscreen identities are affiliated with the discourse of homosexuality. While the white male star Hudson had to assume the mask of ultra-heterosexuality and normativized manliness to conceal his gay self, the Asian supporting actor Ahn was often cast in sidekick roles that called for an effeminate bodily comportment assimilative of amorphous queer sexuality. Thus, what Ahn's Lu Wan ventriloquizes for Hudson's Hess is not simply the latter's religious conscience but also a potential for expressing queer masculinity, repressed in the homophobic culture of the Eisenhower era." (2006:162-163, fns. omitted.)

Pointing out that Philip Ahn is in three of the six films TCM has chosen to sample the Oriental genre of the Asian detective in their Race and Hollywood: Asians in Film program continuing this week, I pursued Hye Seung's mention in her book that she sometimes feels the derision aimed at the Charlie Chan films is unfounded because it neglects to appreciate that these roles allowed Asian American actors to work in Hollywood and to get valuable on-the-job training. Hye Seung confessed to feeling very conflicted about the Charlie Chan films. Though she recognizes especially that it's problematic for white actors—Warner Oland and Sidney Toler—to play Charlie Chan in yellow face, and though the Charlie Chan films maximize much fortune cookie wisdom essentializing Chinese identity into "a detective who's wise", the series was—at the same time—such a popular drama in the 1930s-40s. They made more than 40 films. The series was well-received in the United States and even outside. In her research she discovered the films did very well in the Latin American market. When the studios released these B-features along with the A-films, these were the films that people were more interested in. In this genre, minorities knew better than whites. The white detectives were fumbling and couldn't solve the cases. They had to rely on Charlie Chan to solve the mysteries for them. Additionally, the villains were all white. The Chinese government didn't have any problem with Charlie Chan; they had more problems with Chinese warlord dramas. More importantly, the series harbors value because Asian Americans could play Asian Americans. Though admittedly Charlie Chan was a stereotype—the Chinese immigrant with an accent—Charlie Chan was paired with his "number one son", Keye Luke, who—by contrast—was a totally assimilated Asian American who spoke English perfectly without an accent. Keye Luke really admired Warner Oland who played Charlie Chan. His role as number one son gave him a professional advantage. Without the Charlie Chan movies, Hye Seung thinks Keye Luke would never have had a start in Hollywood and, later, in television. It's important to at least recognize that—no matter how stereotypical a role might be in retrospect—context is key. Hye Seung concedes there's a lot of neat stuff about Charlie Chan. For a long time there was a boycott of the whole series and it could not be put on the market until recently but when she shows these films to her young Asian American students, they "kind of like" the series. They recognize something of value. It's the history of the moment. I added that I imagine—or would hope—her students would have enough critical distance to know these stereotypical representations are not truly about who they are but reflect situational details of film history.

Notwithstanding, Hye Seung remains conflicted about Charlie Chan because even today Asian American actors have secondary roles. Even today political practices of role segregation and role stratification remain in effect. But the unique history of the Charlie Chan phenomenon in the 1930s and '40s likewise underscores opportunities for Asian American actors that now no longer exist. Now, because everything is patterned on the blockbuster model, films can't invest a lot of money on risky subjects, or too specific subjects. Everything has to have a universal appeal. In the 1930s and '40s, there was no competing media. There was no television. They were churning out so many films—500 films per year—something like Daughter of Shanghai could not be made today. It was special to the moment. It was something of an improvement in a one step forward, two steps back kind of way. Despite reservations, Hye Seung wants to emphasize that the Charlie Chan series gave jobs to Asian American actors, and provided Asian American actors the chance to start their Hollywood careers; Keye Luke especially.

When I spoke to Peter Feng about the TCM series and asked if he could pinpoint an example of ethnic masquerade in the line-up, he mentioned Charlie Chan in Honolulu. I asked Hye Seung if she had any comments on that particular film? She responded that she included Charlie Chan in Honolulu as an example of ethnic masquerade in her book. Philip Ahn plays Charlie Chan's son-in-law Wing Foo. In the beginning of the film Philip Ahn announces that Charlie Chan's daughter is having a baby so everybody goes to the hospital to await the birth of the child. Charlie Chan has to leave to solve a mystery and the baby is born while he's away. Philip Ahn calls Charlie Chan (played by Sidney Toler) to tell him the baby is born, healthy and pretty and looks like Charlie Chan's daughter; but—as in the aforementioned I Spy episode—he speaks in Korean! It's a very short passage and he speaks only a few sentences but it provides a cultural rupture of import to bicultural and bilingual spectators.

I asked if there were any cross-linguistic ruptures in the three Pearl Buck vehicles TCM is broadcasting in which Ahn is likewise featured? Hye Seung answered that in both The Good Earth and Dragon Seed Philip Ahn's roles are quite short. He appears in one scene for maybe one minute or two minutes. He plays Chinese but speaks in English and in Dragon Seed Hye Seung couldn't recall if he even had a speaking line. He might just be in the background as an extra villager; at most, one or two lines.

China Sky proved more problematic, and therefore more interesting, and she used the film as her major case study in chapter four of her book because Ahn's character was a Chinese collaborator with the Japanese against his American supervisors in a Chinese hospital during wartime. At the time the movie was filmed, China was the most valued Asian ally of America so such a traitorous representation of China did not go over well. Hollywood had already received much protest from the Chinese government in the '40s because of their degrading images of China in Shanghai Express and The General Died At Dawn. During WWII especially, the U.S. government had a tight grip on the propaganda incorporated into Hollywood film and all the major studios had to have their treatments and scripts approved before production. In order for China Sky to pass the government censors, Ahn's role had to be changed from Chinese to half-Korean/half-Japanese. In the original story, Ahn betrays his country and his American supervisor because he needed money and is bribed by a Japanese prisoner. The whole logic of the story revolved around the sentiment that—once the white people were kicked out of China—then the Japanese could be kicked out. In the revised script, his rationale for collaborating with the Japanese prisoner was because his father was Japanese. The Japanese prisoner, played by Richard Loo, immediately recognizes Ahn's character as half-Japanese—"which doesn't make any sense," Hye Seung quipped—but, the point being that in China Sky Ahn's character is known as Korean and he carries the secret of his half-heritage.

I asked Hye Seung if she had any plans to convert her research into a filmed documentary on Philip Ahn? "That would be my dream," she confessed. It would take finding someone with whom she could collaborate. She was contacted by Korean American filmmaker Wonsuk Chin (Too Tired to Die, 1998) who was interested in filming a Hollywood feature about Philip Ahn; but, Hye Seung wasn't sure if he was still pursuing the project. Without question, Philip Ahn's life story and career would make a fantastic documentary subject and she hopes someone with production skills will step forward to take on the project.

* * *

If, by chance, you are unfamiliar with the work of Philip Ahn, six of his performances will be featured in TCM's broadcast of Asian Images in Film. They are:

Daughter of Shanghai (Paramount; 1937)
The Good Earth (MGM; 1937)
Thank You, Mr. Moto (20th Century Fox; 1937)
Charlie Chan In Honolulu (20th Century Fox; 1938)
Dragon Seed (MGM; 1944)
China Sky (RKO, 1945)

Video Detective has 10 trailers from Philip Ahn's films. More astoundingly, PerfSpot has multiple Kung Fu episodes available on streaming video. Check it out, Grasshopper!

Monday, 9 June 2008

ITALIAN CINEMA—Instituto Italiano di Cultura Dario Argento Film Series

Continuing their Tuesday evening DVD screenings throughout the Summer, the Instituto Italiano di Cultura kicks off the season by paying tribute to the recent release of Dario Argento's The Mother of Tears with a mini-retrospective of Dario Argento films, all shown at 6:30PM in Italian with English subtitles, at the Italian Cultural Institute, 425 Washington Street, San Francisco (415/788-7142). You can't beat the price; admission is FREE!

Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Profondo Rosso (Deep Red, 1975)


Tuesday, June 17, 2008
La Sindrome di Stendhal (The Stendhal Syndrome, 1996)


Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Non Ho Sonno (Sleepless, 2000)


Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Il Cartaio (The Card Player, 2003)

Sunday, 8 June 2008

JOAN BLONDELL: THE FIZZ ON THE SODA—The Evening Class Interview With Matthew Kennedy, Part Two

Part One of my conversation with film historian Matthew Kennedy can be found here.

* * *

Guillén: In the upcoming Pacific Film Archive retrospective Joan Blondell: The Fizz on the Soda, they've included Edmund Goulding's film Nightmare Alley (1947), which I've never seen. In your chapter on the making of that film in your biography of Goulding [Edmund Goulding's Dark Victory: Hollywood's Genius Bad Boy, University of Wisconsin Press, 2004], you emphasized his facility with actors and how he elicited incredible performances out of both his female and his male actors. Can you talk about Nightmare Alley?

Kennedy: I love Nightmare Alley. It's such an odd movie. As I write about it in the book, it's a movie that should never have been made. Its excellence is something of a happy accident, because of the odd and seemingly incongruous elements that came together to make that movie. It came from a really tawdry novel of the same name by William Lindsay Gresham and it's about a carny, a guy who works at these rundown Midwestern carnivals. The lesser end of the carnival hierarchy involves people who are known as circus "geeks." A geek then doesn't mean what it does today. Back then it involved biting the heads off live chickens basically as a carnival act, a "geek show." This is the kind of degradation we're talking about in these different performances. This book becomes a fascinating look at the absolute underbelly and low end aspects of show business and fame and putting yourself out there in a dark and fatalistic way.

So I read the book and I was thinking, "There's nobody in 1947 that would touch this. It's positively radioactive, given what the Code would say and what it would impose on the content of the film, if they were to try to turn it into that." But, of course, somebody did decide to do that and it was none other than George Jessel, who had produced some very accessible and light and entertaining film musicals. He went to Darryl Zanuck with the novel and said, "I want to turn this into a movie." Zanuck took one look at the book and said, "This is pure filth and it's not going to happen." But somehow Jessel was able to convince him and—even further, as a miracle of persuasion—he was able to convince Zanuck to allow Tyrone Power to star in it. Tyrone Power was, at the time, Fox's number one matinee idol and was doing swashbucklers and great romances in full exploitation of his fantastic good looks. Now he's going to play a carnival heel who is degraded to the status of a geek?! The meetings where Zanuck was persuaded to do that must have been amazing.

Guillén: Wasn't Power hungry for the challenge?

Kennedy: Yes. That was probably a major factor. Power said, "Look. You're giving me the same stuff over and over again. I want to be challenged as an actor." He was very keen on doing it. I'm wondering if Jessel and Power didn't do a one-two attack on Zanuck until Zanuck's resolve was surrendered?

Guillén: I'm always intrigued by actors who get caught up in what I call the Liza-Minnelli-imitating-Dustin-Hoffman school of acting. After Dustin Hoffman did Ratso, every "serious" actor (Minnelli?) wanted to put a scar on their face and do something gutter theatrical. But there is a value in allowing an actor to escape their own good looks to test their chops. In Jungian parlance I guess it would be called enantiodromia. You go so far in one direction—you're a box office matinee idol forever—that you have to break through that image to its less attractive opposite.

Kennedy: You have to break out or you will die of boredom or a broken heart from sheer redundancy.

Guillén: Let's talk about Joan Blondell. Tell me about her performance in Nightmare Alley.

Kennedy: Blondell is one of three females who come in and out of Tyrone Power's life. She's dominant in the first part of the movie as someone who's working in the carnival with him but her husband is a late-stage alcoholic. Power uses the still-attractive Blondell to extract the secret code of how to do this act within the carnival that appears to be mind reading; but, in fact it's not. It's a code. It's how these two people interact with one another so that they can convince the audience that they are, in fact, practicing telepathy.

Guillén: How interesting. Many years ago I was fooling around with Teller of Penn and Teller fame, back before they headed out to New York to seek their fortune. I met him just when they were finishing up their act "Asparagus Valley Cultural Society" at San Francisco's Phoenix Theatre. He did a trick in the act—the Indian pin trick—where he would swallow 100 needles and then pull them out all threaded on a string. I begged him to tell me how he did it but he insisted he couldn't reveal his secrets. I know both of them were very influenced by the carnival circuit and I grew up with a lot of that as well. We were poor and lived on the outskirts of town where the traveling carnivals would pitch their geek and freak tents. I loved them! I remember a man who was half crocodile and a woman who was half horse, all done with mirrors, complete sham, but thoroughly intoxicating to a young child. I actually pulled a real sword out of sword swallower's mouth! I'll never forget the fearful thrill of that!

Kennedy: You would love Nightmare Alley! This is your milieu. You can't miss Nightmare Alley. You have to see it, if you're telling me this.

Guillén: As with Dressler, was there a movie of Blondell's that caught your imagination and enthused you to write a biography about her?

Kennedy: A couple of things brought me to Blondell. Actually, the idea to do this book in particular came to me through her son. I was interviewed about Goulding for a documentary on old Hollywood. I hadn't yet finished the Goulding book but the producer of the documentary was Norman Powell, who was Joan Blondell's son by—technically, biologically, by George Barnes, the great cinematographer—but, he's the adopted son of Dick Powell, who was Joan Blondell's second husband; George Barnes being her first.

We were talking about Goulding all day long for this documentary and at the end of the day—after having much fun taping—Norman said, "Well, maybe you should do a book on my mother?" I knew that his mother was Joan Blondell and when an offer like that drops in your lap—her son suggesting it—well, my biographer brain started to churn, thinking, "Access to wonderful letters. Family stories. Family friends. Photos. This is great. I'll have more opportunity for greater intimacy in writing Blondell's story than I had for Dressler or Goulding; neither of them had kids and there are few people alive who remember them."

I contacted Norman about a year later—I hadn't yet finished the Goulding book—but I said, "Were you serious about my writing a biography of your mom? Because I would really like to do that." I had admired her for a very long time. How I came to her personally is because I am of a certain age that—when I was in junior high—what was on television but Here Come the Brides. It was a short-lived series—only on for two seasons—but, many people in my age range fondly remember that show.

Guillén: It triggered every matrimonial dream you ever had, eh?

Kennedy: [Laughter.] Exactly. They came and went pretty quickly, those dreams. Bobby Sherman was in that show and he was a big bubblegum star. I was attracted to this salty, older character actress, this larger-than-life saloon keeper in the series and—once again—my mother said, "Oh, that's Joan Blondell and she was a regular, really hardworking, reliable, terrific actress at Warner Brothers in the '30s." Again, subliminally or without any great conscious effort my mother educated me on yet another actress. So that's how I first became aware of Joan Blondell and then, of course, later I filled in the gaps with her earlier career.

Guillén: I vaguely remember that television show but probably more for Sherman than Blondell. Admittedly, I'm not that familiar with the body of Blondell's work. I guess I dismissed her for being a supporting actress who tended to play "good" girls.

Kennedy: That's another reason to see Nightmare Alley.

Guillén: She's not a good girl in Nightmare Alley?

Kennedy: Not so good in Nightmare Alley. Also, what amazed me when I actually studied her career is that she wasn't always a supporting actress. She had a leading lady status for 15 years; but, the films were generally B-list films at Warner Brothers, and then even later when she left Warner Brothers and was freelancing at Columbia and MGM and so forth. Even then she was given star billing. It wasn't until after WWII that she became a supporting player.

Guillén: Many of those B-list films have ended up holding up better than their A-list counterparts, having more allure as the years go by, popping up in revival screenings at repertory houses and festivals. Why do you think that is? What's changed in our culture to make these films that were once considered minor more interesting?

Kennedy: I wonder if it's because they feel like they're closer to the real thing? For example, Warner Brothers was great at making movies that were literally pulled from the headlines. In fact, one explanation I was given for that is because they were cheaper. Warner Brothers was very budget-minded as a studio and it cost a lot less to get a story off the headlines as opposed to hiring a writer to draft an adaptation of a novel. Part of the pleasure I get in watching B-list Warner Brothers gangster movies, or Depression-era prohibition dramas of the early '30s, is because I feel I am in touch with the morality of the time, the aesthetics of the time, what was entertaining, what passed for good or at least passable film acting. I get a feeling these movies were probably made in six days and—in some cases—that's true. It's the immediacy of those films, maybe, their unpretentiousness, that makes them attractive today.

Guillén: Interesting. And now the same cheap budget rationale is why we have so many so-called reality TV dramas. No one needs to write a script. Just throw a bunch of ghost hunters in a haunted house one week after the next and call it entertainment. Entertainment has been ratcheted down year after year to approximate a "reality" audiences can relate to. When we look at these B-features of the '30s and '40s, they seem much more accomplished by comparison. As gritty and realistic as they purported to be, they're still somehow romanticized.

Kennedy: That's why black and white is so effective and why I love black and white. That era in particular, the '30s and '40s, had some of the greatest black and white cinematographers. In those film noirs and detective stories there is a realism but—at the same time—an escapism, precisely because there's an absence of color. A lot of female film stars of that era have said they preferred black and white because they looked better. The flaws weren't so obvious. The lighting could be less realistic. But there's a full range of black and white, isn't there? From the gauzy lens to the harsh full-focus sharpness that can actually be pretty unflattering in film noir. But there's always a level of escapism that's not always there with color. Color is what most of us see every day. Even with black and white films that are attempting to be highly realistic, you can always pull yourself out of it ever so slightly by saying, "Oh yeah, it's black and white. It's a movie." I don't see that choice as a fault or a shortcoming. In fact, it's a reminder of the magic of movies.

Guillén: I agree. There's a remove. In terms of the lineup for the Blondell retrospective, did you choose these movies? How did they get chosen?

Kennedy: The programming was ultimately PFA's decision; but, I worked with Charles Silver at MOMA in putting together last December's 13-film retrospective. My suggestions offered something from each part of her career as a good cross-section of comedies and dramas so that—you want to know about Joan Blondell?—see these movies and you'll get a good glimpse from the beginning to the end of her career. Because of availability, PFA is showing nearly every film that was shown at MOMA. So, indirectly, I was part of the programming.

Guillén: You'll be introducing the first two nights of the series: Blonde Crazy (1931) and Night Nurse (1931) on Friday, June 13 and then Footlight Parade (1933) on Sunday, June 15. Perhaps I could ask you to briefly synopsize the films in the series you will not be introducing?

Kennedy: Three On A Match (1932)—if you want gritty pre-Code, they don't come any grittier than Three On A Match. It's part of volume two of TCM's Forbidden Hollywood series and it involves three women who were friends in grade school and then it catches up with them several years later and the different paths their lives have taken. One in particular—played by the shamefully neglected Ann Dvorak—burns a hole through the screen. The three women are Dvorak, Blondell and Bette Davis and, interestingly, of the three the one who makes the least impression is Bette Davis. Her role is quite underwritten. What's also interesting about Three On A Match is that it's only 63 minutes long and it covers something like 15 years. It is the most tight, economical, without-feeling-rushed movie you will ever see. It's a text book lesson in filmmaking efficiency and storytelling; it's absolutely amazing that way.

The King and the Chorus Girl (1937) is a delightful comedy that's been compared to Lubitsch and—as Juliet Clark writes in the PFA notes—it was supposed that Blondell would have probably been great in Lubitsch movies and Blondell herself said her performance in The King and the Chorus Girl was one of her very best, maybe her best, and her favorite. It's not a typical comedy. Basically, she—as the chorus girl—helps this king come down off of his pompous high horse. She's not impressed with his station in life.

Guillén: She's a "so what?" girl?

Kennedy: She's a "so what?" girl, exactly. "You don't impress me." A Tree Grows In Brooklyn (1945), of course, is Elia Kazan's first movie based on the great Betty Smith novel about tenement life at turn-of-the-century Brooklyn and the coming of age of a young impressionable girl who is showing talent as a writer; it's Betty Smith's story. Joan Blondell was fond of A Tree Grows In Brooklyn and she has a meaty role that was, again, one of her very best. In fact, people I've talked to have consistently wondered why she wasn't nominated for an Oscar for the wonderful, full-bodied character that she plays. The answer is: I don't know. I do know that her character—because she had led a promiscuous life and been married many times—really had to be sanitized by the Code, which probably cut into the effectiveness that her character could have had. But she certainly makes everything of it that she can as an actress.

Juliet Clark's notes are truly superb and I don't know how much more I can add to them. There's Always A Woman (1938) was one of the first movies Blondell made after she left Warner Brothers. It was one of a handful of movies she made in partnership with Melvyn Douglas at Columbia. There's Always A Woman shows off Blondell's comic skills very well. You can see that they're roughly trying to imitate A Thin Man with Douglas and Blondell mimicking the roles of Nick and Nora Charles, sophisticates out to solve murders who also have a clear erotic attraction to each other; the forensics-as-sexy trope.

Three Girls About Town (1941) is another Columbia comedy. This is one of those B-list movies that—when I first saw it—I was so enchanted. I was laughing outloud. It's so fast and witty and has great characters and great set-ups. Basically, Blondell's the hostess at a convention—which is, of course, a euphemism perhaps—and she and her sisters, they're named Hope, Faith and Charity, they're working in this particular hotel where a convention's going on. Somebody dies at this convention but the body keeps popping up. It somewhat presages Hitchcock's The Trouble With Harry; but, it's much more overtly comic in terms of how they deal with the body. There's one scene that's become somewhat famous where the dead person is playing poker. How they managed to convey this idea is pretty darn funny.

Lizzie (1957) is one of the supporting performances Blondell gave in the '50s after her film career went into hibernation (due to her damaging marriage to Mike Todd). The overwhelming evidence suggests Todd was abusive and, as a result, Blondell was not on the screen for several years. When she came back, she was older, had gained weight, and could no longer command the leading roles. She had transitioned into being a character actress. Film work was not that forthcoming; but, she did land a job in Lizzie. She plays the aunt of a woman with split personalities, specifically Eleanor Parker. Lizzie came out the same year that The Three Faces of Eve came out. There were other films as well dealing with psychiatry and schizophrenia. Lizzie got much less air time and notoriety than The Three Faces of Eve and when you see it, it's clear it was a movie with a shoestring budget. Blondell's character of the aunt is instrumental in why and how Lizzie is the way she is. There are flashbacks that explain how she came to be mentally damaged and, again, Blondell's character figures into that. She plays a very unsympathetic person and does so magnificently.

Opening Night (1978) is provocative. It's a movie I absolutely love; but, I recognize that—because it's John Cassavetes—there are a lot of people who don't care for his movies and find them long and boring.

Guillén: The span of Blondell's career is amazingly represented in this series.

Kennedy: This is why these movies work so well as a set. Not only are you spanning a huge amount of time—the first movie of the series is 1931; the last one is 1978—but her first movie was made one year before Blonde Crazy and her last movie was made one year after Opening Night so this series pretty much covers the entire span of her career. The idea that she started as a contract player at Warner Brothers and finished in a semi-improvisational independent Cassavetes movie is a testament to Blondell's endurance and versatility. Opening Night's a fantastic movie exploring age and regret, being a woman and making art.

Guillén: With the knowledge of the body of Blondell's work—which you clearly possess—can you name one film that is not in this series that you would want people to see?

Kennedy: That's a tough question.

Guillén: It can only be one. [Laughter.]

Kennedy: That's dirty pool! My absolute first reaction is Gold Diggers of 1933 because of the finale "Remember My Forgotten Man"—which is not only the most famous production number or scene of Blondell's career—but, is also an emblematic moment of the Depression. However, the answer I'm going to give is a movie that's much less known and was actually part of the MOMA series. I was sorry it wasn't included at PFA. It's a Warner Brothers movie called Blondie Johnson (1933). It's one of the few times where Warner Brothers said to Blondell, "You are in no uncertain terms the name above the title and you're not co-starring with a man, not supporting somebody, it's a movie about you." She's in every scene. It's a fantastic, low-budget gangster movie where Blondell plays the gangster. She's not the gangster's moll; she's the gangster.

Guillén: Is Blondie Johnson available on DVD?

Kennedy: It's not, unfortunately.

Guillén: I'm quite respectful of how you managed to get two films into that answer.

Kennedy: I did sneak two films in there, didn't I? [Laughter.]

Guillén: Finally, are you a fan of any contemporary films?

Kennedy: Some. I have to say that I don't concentrate on contemporary film as much as I do on older film. I have a friend who teases me that my idea of a new film is anything that came out after 1950 and he's not far off the mark on that!

* * *

Once again I heartily recommend Matthew Kennedy's conversation with Andre Soares at Alternative Film Guide for additional information on Blondell.

Saturday, 7 June 2008

JOAN BLONDELL: THE FIZZ ON THE SODA—The Evening Class Interview With Matthew Kennedy, Part One

Matthew Kennedy is a writer, film historian, and anthropologist living in San Francisco. He is the author of three biographies of classic Hollywood: Marie Dressler: A Biography (McFarland, 1999, paperback 2006), Edmund Goulding's Dark Victory: Hollywood's Genius Bad Boy (University of Wisconsin Press, 2004), and Joan Blondell: A Life between Takes (University Press of Mississippi, 2007). He has also contributed to three anthologies: Strategies in Teaching Anthropology (Pearson Prentice Hall, first and fourth editions, 2000 and 2006) and The Queer Encyclopedia of Film and Television (Cleis, 2005). He is film critic for the respected Bright Lights Film Journal, and his articles have appeared in The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, Performing Arts, and the San Francisco Chronicle. A former modern dancer, arts administrator, and concert producer, he teaches anthropology at the City College of San Francisco and film history at the San Francisco Conservatory of Music. He has been a guest speaker at a number of venues, including the Museum of Modern Art in New York, Pacific Film Archive in Berkeley, Mechanics Institute Library in San Francisco, and on radio, podcasts, and television. Recipient of a Fulbright Research Fellowship and a San Francisco Cable Car Media/Journalism Award, he is a member of The Authors Guild and the The Authors League of America. He is represented by Stuart Bernstein Representation for Artists in New York.

In his capacity as author of the biography of Joan Blondell and in conjunction with the upcoming Pacific Film Archive ("PFA") retrospective Joan Blondell: The Fizz on the Soda running June 13-29, 2008, I invited Matthew over for flapjacks and spent a most enjoyable morning getting to know him. Our conversation is divided into two parts. The first focuses on his volumes on Marie Dressler and Edmund Goulding and the second focuses on Joan Blondell and the PFA series.


* * *

Michael Guillén: Matthew, how did you become involved in writing film history?

Matthew Kennedy: Well, I can't say I went to school to study film because that wouldn't be true; but, I always loved film as a kid. My Mom loved film and she was a great fan of '30s movies and whatnot, so—if something showed up on TV—I would watch it with her and she would explain, "Now, that's Humphrey Bogart. He was this person and he married that person." Through osmosis—by my Mom being a fan—I became one. I never thought about writing about film until much later. I majored in theater at UCLA and the film department was literally right next door but, for some reason, I never took any classes there or acquainted myself with film.

Guillén: I've long felt someone should write a film essay praising the influence of mothers on young cinephiles. The same thing happened with me: midday matinee TV movies with Mom training me to identify actors. Actors were the first group of people I associated with movies—long before I was won over to the directorial auteurship of filmmaking—precisely because Mother was interested in actors. I suppose that at that time movies were pure escapism for housewives and this body of experience was like a syllabus a mother could hand down to her children.

Kennedy: So well said, Michael. Your observation about mothers and their cinephilic children rings true. My mother was like your mother in at least one way—she talked more about the stars than the specific films. She was a teenager in the '30s; she grew up in the studio era. My grandmother would not let her see "bad" or "naughty" Kay Francis, but she could see Irene Dunne because she was "a lady." My mother laughed in retrospect about her brief crush on Nelson Eddy, but made no apologies for adoring Leslie Howard. I realize now that these personal stories formed the basis of my own exploration into classic films.

On Marie Dressler
Guillén: My understanding is that your film writing kickstarted by watching Marie Dressler as Carlotta Vance in George Cukor's Dinner At Eight (1933), prompting your McFarland biography of her. What was it about her particular performance in that film that motivated you?

Kennedy: It was Dinner At Eight's non-stop wit. I first saw it at the Crest Theatre in Sacramento. I love Marie Dressler and I love that time. I loved the depiction of the Depression as it was happening. The fashions. The argot. The wit of the script. The fantastic priority that films gave back then to great characters; Dressler being one of the all-time greatest.

Guillén: Without any official training, what did that feel like for you to write a book?

Kennedy: It was thrilling actually. To see a book take shape. I don't know if this will sound strange; but, writing is an act of self-realization. It's an act of realizing, "I'm somebody that can write a book." I suppose I put a lot of import into that before I actually did it. I invested this huge amount of meaning into anyone who could actually author a book and now I was one of those people!

Guillén: That's lovely. I, too, believe in dreaming in detail. I find it interesting and honest that you qualify your statement by calling it "strange" because I think most people don't know how to manifest or actualize or self-realize. It's learning how to do that as a writer that is uniquely satisfying.

Kennedy: It was thrilling beyond words and, ironically, it was all about words. Not only was it the idea that I could write a book, but that I enjoyed it so much. The act of research, combing through archives and finding this one-of-a-kind stuff that exists in a special collection in Philadelphia or in Cleveland or in New York—which was the route I took with the Dressler book—was, for me, as fun and exciting and revealing as the writing itself. As soon as this archival material presented itself, the writer in me said, "I cannot wait to put this on the page! I can't wait to render these discrete pieces of information into something coherent." I just love doing that!

Guillén: Your passion clearly comes across in your books. Their thoroughness is nearly sensual. They're meticulously researched; but, the research is offered up in accessible language. Which leads me to ask about your research methodology: as someone who hadn't studied film and who really hadn't written before, how did you know to go about it?

Kennedy: Well, I wish I could say it was carefully thought out; but, that wouldn't be the case. [Laughs.] Again, I hope this doesn't come off as dull in terms of what one actually does; but, with all of them, I start out with basic research sources. I go to film encyclopedias. I start with a capsule biography of Marie Dressler that's half a page long, which lists her credits. The Dressler book was done before I was using the Internet. There was no IMdb that I could use at that time 10-12 years ago. I would start with a skeleton: "What are the easy dates that I can plug in that are high points or low points in this person's life that form a skeleton of chronology?" Because I start with the idea that I'm going to be writing—structurally—a standard cradle-to-grave biography where the toeholds are dates. This is the date that movie was made. This is the date she divorced so-and-so. This is the date she died. This is the date he first went off to war. I mean, any number of things. Then I overlay those with actual moments in history within their lifetime that impacted their life and might also be of interest to the reader.

In the case of all three that I've written about so far—Marie Dressler, Edmund Goulding, Joan Blondell—they all saw the Depression. So 1929 always figures into, "Okay, what was going on with this person and how did they cope with that social reversal?"

Guillén: What is it about the "social reversal" of the Depression that captivates you?

Kennedy: I wonder! It does seem to be a place I keep coming back to. I'm fascinated by the change in social habits. The onset of the Code, certainly, as a representation of film audiences being more and more vocal, perhaps, about film content; that films had to get "cleaner" while America plunged into a Depression could not have been a coincidence. How stars were made and broken by their studios. That genres were being defined and refined—musicals, westerns, mysteries, romantic comedies, documentaries were all actually young once. That some of those movies, those stars, have burned into our collective consciousness, while others have not. And, again, it may have something to do with imagining my parents growing up. All of that simply fascinates me.

Once the skeleton is set, then I start watching the movies. I had a great deal of fun creating my own film festival around finding as many of the movies of these people that I could, some of which are quite rare. From there I search for anybody alive who I might be able to interview. I had mixed success there. I sent out a lot of letters and a lot of them didn't get answered; but, occasionally, someone would say, "I'd love to talk about so-and-so. Please call me." From there it turns into, "Oh, you should also talk to so-and-so…." or "Have you been to this library? I think she left some of her stuff there." A lot of it is just word of mouth where you're simply following leads. That's where the disorganization comes in. For example, with the Dressler book, I did not know that writing that book would take me to Philadelphia. I had no idea at the onset that I'd be going to Washington, D.C.

Guillén: They house archives of her papers?

Kennedy: Dressler had a long career in vaudeville, and there are theater collections in Cleveland and Philadelphia that were invaluable. Philadelphia also has a collection of early Mack Sennett material related to Tillie's Punctured Romance (1914) and some of her very early silent films in different collections. It's so much fun because that stuff only exists in one place and in one form so you have to travel. It's not accessible online. It's not reproduced in any books. That's when you really feel you're striking the research mother lode.

Guillén: It's not difficult to access these archives?

Kennedy: No, it isn't actually because they're in various public and private institutions that are available for researchers. It's great fun. So you're dealing with different dates and you're trying to write so that the narrative reads as seamless and complete. Let's see, which metaphors work here? Skeleton and flesh, bricks and mortar? Then it goes through multiple edits, shuffling, whittling. Then it enters the world, and you hope that someone besides your family and friends is reading it. And I am always very happy to see one of my books in someone else's bibliography.

Guillén: It's the weave.

Kennedy: Exactly! It's the weave. It's the connections. It's the building of a literature and a body of knowledge.
On Edmund Goulding
Guillén: Speaking of a body of knowledge, one thing I admire about film historians is when they use biography to embody film history. From Dressler you turned your attention to Edmund Goulding and wrote Edmund Goulding's Dark Victory: Hollywood's Genius Bad Boy. How did that book happen? Dinner At Eight captured your imagination about Dressler? What provided the aesthetic arrest with Goulding?

Kennedy: I like that term "aesthetic arrest"! I finished the Dressler book and I didn't know what I was going to do next. I don't feel that I'm a very good idea person. I wish I had all these great plans for books but it's kind of a struggle. I was speaking to a friend of mine who is also a film historian and I said, "I don't know what to do next. Do you have any ideas?" and he said, "Edmund Goulding." I said, "I know he's a director. I've seen his name." He said, "Just do a little bit of research. I think you'll find him very interesting."

Guillén: Edmund Goulding is beyond interesting.

Kennedy: Indeed! That was an understatement, wasn't it? Even the very fleeting information I found about him in the beginning indicated that he got into some trouble with the studio bosses that had to do with his private life.

Guillén: That caught your attention right away.

Kennedy: [Laughter.] It certainly did; I'll tell you! When I first saw his complete career resume, I was very impressed. Many of the films I recognized but hadn't attached his name to. "He did that one! And that one! Oh my God, those are wonderful movies!" It got more and more interesting, in part because his career easily divides into threes. He had time at MGM. He had time at Warner Brothers. He had time at Fox. In that order. Each phase offers an inside-out approach to understanding the mechanics of those studios and the bosses that he was dealing with—Mayer, Warner and Zanuck—and why he burned his bridges at all three of them eventually. But why also he was such a gifted filmmaker that they kept giving him projects to do, even though he was problematic. One could say that his private life was nobody's business; but, he did get in trouble with the law over certain careless behavior and some very ugly behavior I think around—not exactly sexual assault—but certainly … what would you call it?

Guillén: A lapse in judgment?

Kennedy: A lapse in judgment! Thank you. A lapse in judgment. And he had some serious drinking problems and he was probably doing other drugs as well. None of that's going to sit well in an era of '30s and '40s Hollywood in terms of—should he be found out—he's going to be in big trouble. But he was fascinating.

Guillén: A contemporary parallel might be the career of Robert Downey, Jr. where an artist can be in the thrall of dark vices but the darkness—if surmounted or worked through—becomes a fulcrum for a creative expression that is uniquely your own, precisely for what you've gone through. I'm less judgmental of the dark side in people and am—to a certain extent—appreciative of the value of such dark phases.

What fascinated me when I was reading your book on Goulding was precisely how important and influential he was in Hollywood. Like yourself, I was surprised to discover he had directed Grand Hotel, Dark Victory, Of Human Bondage, etc., etc., but I was also amazed to discover his role in introducing sound technologies to Hollywood movies and in helping silent stars like Gloria Swanson shift into the talkies. I didn't know he had been instrumental in launching the careers of Joan Crawford and David Niven or that he had trysted with a young Tahlulah Bankhead or concealed an on-set crush for Gary Cooper. His contributions are so major that it baffles me that he is relatively unknown. Were it not for your book….


Kennedy: Part of the problem was that he became something of a pariah because of his private life, which occasionally leaked to the press and caused a lot of problems and complaints and so forth. That resulted in people giving him the cold shoulder in his lifetime, but then there's been very little attention paid to him since then. He just sort of fell into obscurity.

Guillén: He'd be a great subject for a movie.

Kennedy: I think so too!

Guillén: Who do you think could play him?

Kennedy: Maybe Robert Downey, Jr.? What's interesting about Goulding too is that his private life seems so at odds with the content and the styles of his films. His films are very lush and romantic. They're about affairs of the heart.

Guillén: And surprisingly moral!

Kennedy: Great moral lessons about love, sacrifice, and honesty. We Are Not Alone is nearly a primer on how to live a life that insures some degree of suffering, but remains noble and true.

Guillén: Who else would know better about these issues than someone who was struggling with them?

Kennedy: But there isn't a direct relationship. It's not like you can see one of his films and go, "Aha! That relates to this event in his life." He was much more subtle than that. And, of course, he'd been given these different projects by the studio heads and so how much of his personal life he could interject, or would want to, is questionable anyway.

Guillén: Also, moviemaking at that time—as we were mentioning earlier with regard to how our mothers used movies to form our moral character—movies were in the service of nation building at that time; they were in the service of establishing our nation's moral character and any film director at the time in tune with the zeitgeist would know what was required; they would know which icons to use to trigger the feelings to deliver the message requisite for filmmaking at that time.

Kennedy: That is definitely the case with Goulding. Especially the women that he directed. He directed Davis and Crawford and Garbo and others so shrewdly and with such keen insight on exactly what you're talking about that their images on the screen turned into and could be cultivated into iconographic, indelible fantasies.

Guillén: He knew how to elicit or manufacture their individual styles of radiance.

Kennedy: Absolutely.

Guillén: When I was reading your book, especially in your descriptions of his interaction with Garbo, I could see her cold glow so clearly. With the studio system's star making apparatus of that time, radiance was everything. The glow of the star was everything. A filmmaker had to know how to do this with these women to make them larger than life and Goulding certainly did. It's something I find largely absent in filmmaking today. There's a tendency in contemporary film to bring everybody down to street level and to make actors egalitarian with their audiences.

Kennedy: Or less attention paid on that kind of fantasy. There are other fantasies going on today with computer generated imagery for over-the-top emotions; but, not the transporting fantasy that you get with black and white, a soft lens, beautiful lighting, where it really does appear—especially, let's say, in Garbo's movies—as if she's lit from within. It's not a reflection of light that's coming at her; it's coming out of her almost.
* * *
I strongly recommend Matthew Kennedy's conversations with Andre Soares at Alternative Film Guide, a fantastic blog full of profiles and interviews, including further discussions on both Marie Dressler and Edmund Goulding.

Continue to Part Two of this conversation.