Tuesday, March 07, 2023

Books (Kat, Ava and C.I.)

1summerread

 

Last week, Kat's "Robert Sellers wrote a book of garbage" went up and we're talking to her about the book HOLLYWOOD HELLRAISERS.  It focuses on four American actors:  Marlon Brando, Warren Beatty, Jack Nicholson and Dennis Hopper.  You didn't enjoy the book.

  

Kat: I did not.  The facts were loose when present at all.  There were so many awkwardly written sentences.


You quoted one: "She'd not long divorced from husband and former lead singer of the Mamas and the Papas John Phillips, by whom she had a daughter, Chynna, who would herself go on to become a pop star with Wilson Phillips."

 
Kat: When you write a sentence like that, "She'd not long divorced from husband and . . ." maybe you shouldn't try to write another book?  You should definitely refuse to ever work with the same editor again.
 
You wrote about how you enjoyed his first book, HELLRAISERS,  And didn't interpret his coverage of Elizabeth Taylor as sexism.

Kat: Right.  He's a Brit and I wrote off the hatred of Elizabeth is just that of a British man who's so upset the Richard Burton didn't perform repeatedly in the 60s and 70s on the London stage but instead sought a career as a film star.  But looking back, it's sexism.  There weren't women in the first book who had any real power.  They were wives that were cheated on basically.  Elizabeth was the only one with a career and, of course, more famous than any of the men in the book -- Richard Burton, Richard Harris, Peter O'Toole and Oliver Reed.  The author has a problem with women.
 
You also called out the author's homophobia. 

Kat: Right.  Marlon Brando is dead.  Why we can't we honest about his same-sex affairs?  The author notes a 70s remark by Brandon about sleeping with men and dismisses it as a possible joke.  As though Marlon didn't discuss it elsewhere or note it in his own autobiography.  As though Marlon's ex-wife didn't write about it when he was still alive.   But apparently reality is too 'icky' for the author. And then he went to town on Natalie Wood, calling her a "starf**ker" for her affair with Warren Beatty.  Warren wasn't really a star then, by the way.  In addition, he blames the affair for breaking up Natalie's marriage with Robert Wagner ignoring the reality that Natalie walked in on Robert Wagner with another man and that's what broke up the marriage and had her attempt suicide.  It's in Suzanne Finstad's book on Natalie Wood -- a book Sellers clearly read since he steals from it so frequently including for an anecdote about Warren using a straight pin to separate his eye lashes before filming on SPLENDOR IN THE GRASS.  But Suzanne speaks to multiple people who knew Natalie and talk about what she walked in on and how it destroyed her.

You do a good job of showing that Warren and Natalie were well done with SPLENDOR before her marriage broke up.  We'll just note that you could have also used Joan Collins as part of the record.  In addition to her public remarks, you can go through her autobiography PAST IMPERFECT and see that he was still with Joan well after SPLENDOR finished filming, through a movie she filmed in London and through his filming of THE ROMAN SPRING OF MRS. STONE.

Kat: He doesn't know what he's writing about -- he gets credits wrong repeatedly when introducing someone into one of the stories.  I liked HELLRAISER but he should have stopped there.  Going on to write HOLLYWOOD HELLRAISER was destroying his own reputation.  And to pick up on a thread that's emerging in the discussions this year, I'm not in the mood for people who hide sexuality.  Marlon was honest during his lifetime, I can't believe Sellers wants to lie.  As for Robert Wagner, do we have to wait until he's dead to note his same-sex affairs?  Who does their hiding help?  If Robert Wagner finally came out as bisexual, it might make people respect him a little -- or at least not think of him just as a murderer. 

 
 
 
 
--------------

Previous book discussions this year:

"Books (Marcia, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Ann, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Trina, Ava and C.I.)," "Books (Marcia, Ava and C.I.)" and "Books (Ava and C.I.)."



Books

1summerread

 

"Mafia Wives (Susan Williams' WHITE MALICE)" -- C.I. reviews this book.

 

 "The Sewing Circle" -- Marcia reads Axel Madsen's THE SEWING CIRCLE.

 

 "Ellen Sander's The Lifestyle That Classic Rock Unleashed" -- Trina reviews this book.


"Phyllis Diller 1917 – 2012: News, Quotes, Interview" -- Ann reviews this book.


"Call Her Heroic (Ava and C.I.)" -- Ava and C.I. review this book.


"Boze Hadleigh's Hollywood Gays" -- Marcia reviews this book.

 

"Robert Sellers wrote a book of garbage" -- Kat reviews HOLLYWOOD HELLRAISERS.  

 

 

 

Kat's reviews Robert Sellers' HOLLYWOOD HELLRAISERS.

Kat's reviews Robert Sellers' HOLLYWOOD HELLRAISERS.

 

Robert Sellers wrote a book of garbage

HELLRAISERS was a good book about Peter O'Toole, Oliver Reed and the Richards (Burton and Harris).  It zipped along nicely and was well written.  If Sellers had left it alone . . .


Instead, he wrote HOLLYWOOD HELLRAISERS and it's an awful book.


I got it on AMAZON KINDLE for $1.99 -- and feel like they owe me ten times that amount for having to read it.


It's too cutesy for words at times.  At other times, it's outright misogynist with terms like "crumpets" and attacks on women.


Natalie Wood, for example, gets attacked in the book.  


She and Warren Beatty were a couple.  I'll come back to that.


And possibly worst of all, it's badly written.


One example:

 


She'd not long divorced from husband and former lead singer of the Mamas and the Papas John Phillips, by whom she had a daughter, Chynna, who would herself go on to become a pop star with Wilson Phillips.


That's a really poorly written sentence: "She'd not long divorced from husband and former" -- she'd not long divorced?  


It's a very badly written sentence in terms of grammar.  


It's also bad factually.  Michelle Phillips was married to John Phllips.  John was not the lead singer of the Mamas and the Papas.  It was a group with four singers and John was the lowest of them all.  If someone called Cass Elliot the lead singer, that would be wrong but it understandable.  She was the public face and had the most powerful voice.  Denny?  Okay, he sang lead on songs like the Mamas and the Papas.  If you wanted to call Michelle a lead?  I wouldn't have a problem with that.  She had leads on "Dedicated To The One I Love" among others.  And, reality, Cass isn't Cass without Michelle.  It was the blend of their voices -- those two voices -- on songs like "Safe In My Garden," "Got A Feeling," etc  that really made the magic.  


But John?


John didn't do a lead vocal on any song.  He was never a soloist because even he knew he didn't have the chops.  That why his solo album bombed.


It wasn't badly written -- it has some of the best songs John ever wrote.  And the players on the music?  Outstanding.  But John not a singer.  His voice isn't distinctive -- not enough to be a soloist.


So let's get to the problem with the book: Homophobia on the part of the author.


You want to write about Marlon Brando?


His sex life with men is not four quick sentences -- especially not four quick sentences where you try to make a remark he made about sleeping with men a joke on his part.  Marlon was bisexual and didn't just make a comment in the seventies, he noted it in his autobiography.   And his ex-wife wrote about it.  It wasn't one man, it was many.  


Sellers is a sexist and a homophobe.  In his previous book he went to town on Elizabeth Taylor.  In that book, I took his hatred of Elizabeth as anti-American.  She had a dual citizenship (British and American citizenship) and, as the book made clear, he was deeply British.  This books makes it clear that he's a sexist.  (See sections on Michelle Phillips who was involved with three of the subjects of his book -- Warren, Jack and Dennis.) And it entwines with his homophobia.


Natalie Wood, he insists, was a "starf**ker" and that's why she went after Warren Beatty.


A woman went after Warren Beatty?  Really?  Because his entire reputation -- especially in the 60s and 70s -- was built around him being the pursuer.


But, according to his book, Natalie went after Warren and did so while married to Robert Wagner.


No, no, no.  Their marriage was over.  Natalie and Warren didn't begin an affair while filming SPLENDOR IN THE GRASS.  Warren was still with Joan Collins.


Joan and Warren were still together after the film was completed.  Natalie and Robert were still together.  She would go on to start WEST SIDE STORY (August of 1960).  She would finish the film (February 1961).  She would have her tonsils removed (April 1961).  Robert started filming SAIL A CROOKED SHIP (May 1961).  They were still together.  Then in June of 1961, the film is completed and Natalie and Robert break up.


Not because of Natalie sleeping with a man.


Because Natalie walked in on Robert Wagner having sex with a man.  


This is detailed in Suzanne Finstad's book on Natalie Wood -- with numerous people detailing how it drove Natalie to attempt suicide.  


They broke up because someone had sex with a man -- but it wasn't Natalie.


And Robert Sellers has read Suzanne's book -- there are quotes from it in HOLLYWOOD HELLRAISERS  -- especially the story about Warren separating each one of his lashes on the set of SPLENDOR to look better for the camera -- and director Eli Kazan's comment about Warren's vanity.

Robert Wagner cheated on Natalie with a man.  That's reality and that's what ended the marriage.  Only after that did Natalie take up with Warren.  


But, sure, call her a "starf**ker" if that's how you roll because you're a sexist and a homophobe.  


I don't have time in the 21st century for little piss ant writers who can't deal with a world that includes LGBTQ+ people.  If you're writing a book about what happened, write about what happened.


 Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

 

 

BLOGGER/BLOGSPOT can't stop censoring

Blogger/Blogspot has had a lot of criticism over the years.  We've stayed with it.  We may not be with it for much longer.  They've censored Kat . . .  Wait.  Let's stop for a moment.  Their current censorship is based on attacks on websites.  People don't like what it says, they file a false complaint and your post gets censored.  


Kat had a post censored and appealed it.  Once they read it, they allowed it to go back up.  Rebecca has had four pulled.  She doesn't care about appealing.  Now Stan's had one pulled.  


It's nonsense and it's bulls**t.  Blogger needs to get their damn act together.


If you're wondering what we're talking about, below is Stan's post that got censored over the weekend.  It went up in 2009.  Over the weekend, it was censored for 'violating community standards.'  Read it and find where it violates one damn thing.  It doesn't.  We're not opposed to pulling out of Blogger.

 

ADDED: BLOGGER just pulled this post minutes after it went up.  We're removing Stan's post but providing a link to it here -- it's at the backup site for THE COMMON ILLS at WORD PRESS.  Read it and grasp how BLOGGER doesn't want you to know what's going on.

Tweet of the week

 

Flashback of the week

Last week, COUNTERPUNCH dug into the archives for Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn's "When Seymour Hersh Strained to Keep Up With CounterPunch" from July 2008.  Our favorite section of the article:



Actually, it’s at this point, after the hokum about “potential defensive legal action” that Hersh detonates a real bombshell. He admits in print that someone got the story before him, something he disdained to do in the case of My Lai, initially excavated with incredible courage by the late Ron Ridenhour. Nor, in the case of Abu Ghraib has Hersh been keen to correct admiring interviewers and remind them that this was a scoop of CBS News. But in this New Yorker he writes: “(In early May, the journalist Andrew Cockburn published elements of the Finding in Counterpunch, a newsletter and online magazine.)”

He probably felt he had to. Hersh had called Andrew Cockburn’s home phone in Washington DC in early June, clearly peeved to have discovered that the  Finding had been described in detail on May 2 in CounterPunch. (By then it was not exactly a closely guarded secret, except to the traditional, near-dead U.S. press. At the time Hersh called, just under a million readers around the world had clicked directly onto the story on our site.) We would not go so far as to surmise that Hersh learned of the Finding from our story. But we do infer that Hersh’s stated informant on what was in the Finding, referred to by Hersh three times as “a former senior intelligence official”, as “the person familiar with the Finding” and as “the former senior intelligence official” knew less than what Andrew Cockburn’s source told him and thus what CounterPunch readers learned in timely fashion, and had their knowledge further enhanced by Andrew Cockburn’s follow-up story on May 30, “Petraeus’s Iran Obsession” which disclosed, with pertinent detail, something readers of the New Yorker will not have learned, that  “So far, according to former officials with knowledge of the finding, the results have been in line with most other U.S. initiatives in the region, i.e. the strengthening of Iran.”

 

 

 

 

Comedy video of the week

 

This edition's playlist

surrender

 

 

1) Diana Ross' SURRENDER.

 

2) Chase Rice's I HATE COWBOYS & ALL DOGS GO TO HELL.

 

3) Carly Simon's LIVE AT GRAND CENTRAL.

 

4)  Diana Ross' THANK YOU. 


5) Robbie Williams' XXV. 


6) Sam Smith's GLORIA.


 


 

10)  Cher's CLOSER TO THE TRUTH.

 

 

 

 

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
 
Poll1 { display:none; }