Cinevent Notes Past: MISSISSIPPI (1935) with W. C. Fields

This forum is nearly identical to the previous forum. The difference? Discussions about comedy from the SOUND era.
Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2203
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Cinevent Notes Past: MISSISSIPPI (1935) with W. C. Field

Postby Richard M Roberts » Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:28 pm

Mike O'Regan wrote:
Part of the problem with both Curtis's Spencer Tracy and James Whale books was that he was writing about people who were frequently assholes, you just really don't want to spend that close a company with those guys.


Yes, totally. Tracy, in particular, came across as an unlikeable bore.

But, Curtis...yeah, he didn't bring to the books any storytelling qualities of his own. The whole thing seemed dry and lifeless with him. The books didn't have any character, if you see what I mean.




Well there are biographers who don't want to get in the way of their subjects, and there is something to be said for that (Louvish got some criticism for being too jokey and over stylish in his prose), but yes, too much of either extreme is not good. I like Curtis's books, because he really does research and set the record straight, but sometimes I want the POV of the biographer to be in there as well, it's going to be whether they try to be invisible or not, might as well not be coy about it.

But his Fields book is truly exlempary, it's easily my favorite of his books.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

Gary Johnson
Cugine
Posts: 656
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:15 am
Location: Sonoma, CA
Contact:

Re: Cinevent Notes Past: MISSISSIPPI (1935) with W. C. Field

Postby Gary Johnson » Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:39 am

Ron Fields was already busy humanizing his great-grandfather back in the mid-70's when his book came out. And he probably had a rougher road to hoe at that time since WC Fields was at the height of his revival popularity, his films played constantly in the major markets and his personae was known by young and old alike, so it was just easier for the general public to just assume that he was a drunken, misanthrope in real life.

I probably have gotten more out of WC FIELDS BY HIMSELF than any other book written about Fields, since that was the book which stated that his work was his life and that he was a perfectionist about it. And when ever anyone got in his way from achieving that perfection he would lash out to all and sundry. But Ron Fields was not a researcher. James Curtis is so he was able to flesh out everything that had been written about before and, as Richard states, dig deeper and give it more nuance. I do admire Curtis' book.
And as I have stated here before on more than one occasion, I do not admire Mr. Louvish as I have never found even one new interesting fact in any of the myriad of film biographies (he does write in other genres also..) that he cranked out in a ten year span. Thankfully he has ran out of comedians to re-write about.

I could see why Curtis was drawn to Spenser Tracy as a subject (outside of the fact that no one had written a full blown biography on the man before) - like Fields, Tracy was the consummate professional, he had a very small circle of friends and his life was his work. However unlikable he comes across is mitigated by me since he is so obviously a man who was uncomfortable in his own skin. I've known more than a few people in my lifetime like that. And it is not the first time that someone so painfully shy in real life would turn to performing as one's vocation. Add to that his inability to communicate with his own son, his addiction to alcohol and his Catholic guilt, and you've got one messed up human being.

And the only reason that we are subjecting ourselves to reliving Tracy's pain is because he was very good at what he did. Just like Bill Fields.

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2203
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Cinevent Notes Past: MISSISSIPPI (1935) with W. C. Field

Postby Richard M Roberts » Wed Jul 16, 2014 1:00 am

Gary Johnson wrote:Ron Fields was already busy humanizing his great-grandfather back in the mid-70's when his book came out. And he probably had a rougher road to hoe at that time since WC Fields was at the height of his revival popularity, his films played constantly in the major markets and his personae was known by young and old alike, so it was just easier for the general public to just assume that he was a drunken, misanthrope in real life.

I probably have gotten more out of WC FIELDS BY HIMSELF than any other book written about Fields, since that was the book which stated that his work was his life and that he was a perfectionist about it. And when ever anyone got in his way from achieving that perfection he would lash out to all and sundry. But Ron Fields was not a researcher. James Curtis is so he was able to flesh out everything that had been written about before and, as Richard states, dig deeper and give it more nuance. I do admire Curtis' book.
And as I have stated here before on more than one occasion, I do not admire Mr. Louvish as I have never found even one new interesting fact in any of the myriad of film biographies (he does write in other genres also..) that he cranked out in a ten year span. Thankfully he has ran out of comedians to re-write about.

I could see why Curtis was drawn to Spenser Tracy as a subject (outside of the fact that no one had written a full blown biography on the man before) - like Fields, Tracy was the consummate professional, he had a very small circle of friends and his life was his work. However unlikable he comes across is mitigated by me since he is so obviously a man who was uncomfortable in his own skin. I've known more than a few people in my lifetime like that. And it is not the first time that someone so painfully shy in real life would turn to performing as one's vocation. Add to that his inability to communicate with his own son, his addiction to alcohol and his Catholic guilt, and you've got one messed up human being.

And the only reason that we are subjecting ourselves to reliving Tracy's pain is because he was very good at what he did. Just like Bill Fields.





Ron Fields opened the Family Archives in the 70’s following a mean and protracted court battle over Fields will and estate, which didn’t get settled until the late 60’s (and is part of what makes Jim Curtis’s book interesting as he details it there) and indeed was one of the people most responsible for getting the real story told. W.C. FIELDS-BY HIMSELF is indeed a most important book for any Fields fan, because it is nearly all Fields words, collected from his papers by Ron, and does give you insight into Fields working methods and bits of his personal life, however, the problem is that Ron Fields didn’t put any of it into perspective, and because he was a family member, he also couldn’t tell the whole story for obvious personal reasons. Curtis fills in the blanks deftly on Field’s very complicated personal and family life, and for the most part, doesn’t take sides, but after reading Curtis’s book, you have a much better understanding of why Fields held the attitudes that he did.

Sadly, both Ron Fields and Jim Curtis’s books are currently out of print.

I know everyone loves to trash Simon Louvish, and when he got into his “writing a book a year” mode, he deserved everything he got, but his Fields book was one of his first, and though it is not as good a book as Curtis’s, it did bring things farther along in getting the real story out, and it came out before Curtis’s book. I also like Louvish’s book on the Marx Brothers, MONKEY BUSINESS, because it is still the only book out on the Marx’s that details their whole careers in every media, and their early years as well. Louvish’s big interests are vaudeville and family ties, so go figure he’d excel with the Brothers Marx. After that, yes, his books fall below the mark rather fast, but still occasionally have things of interest. He had interesting things to day about Laurel and Hardy’s early years, but by the time he got to their film careers, it’s all quoting someone else. His Sennett book was worthless, as was his Demille book. I don’t think I’ve bothered with any others.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Gary Johnson
Cugine
Posts: 656
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:15 am
Location: Sonoma, CA
Contact:

Re: Cinevent Notes Past: MISSISSIPPI (1935) with W. C. Field

Postby Gary Johnson » Wed Jul 16, 2014 10:50 am

Richard M Roberts wrote:
Sadly, both Ron Fields and Jim Curtis’s books are currently out of print.

RICHARD M ROBERTS


Not in my household.

Mike O'Regan
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:04 pm

Re: Cinevent Notes Past: MISSISSIPPI (1935) with W. C. Field

Postby Mike O'Regan » Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:20 pm

Plenty editions of the Curtis book available second-hand though.

'Tis on the way to me, as we speak.

Mike O'Regan
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:04 pm

Re: Cinevent Notes Past: MISSISSIPPI (1935) with W. C. Field

Postby Mike O'Regan » Sun Jul 27, 2014 2:38 pm

Well, boys'n'girls, the Curtis book is, indeed, a vast improvement on his other two...ahem....books.

Tell me this, and tell me no more, is His Lordship's Dilemma lost? I have been able to find Pool Sharks on YouTube but no sign of t'other.

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2203
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Cinevent Notes Past: MISSISSIPPI (1935) with W. C. Field

Postby Richard M Roberts » Sun Jul 27, 2014 3:17 pm

Mike O'Regan wrote:Well, boys'n'girls, the Curtis book is, indeed, a vast improvement on his other two...ahem....books.

Tell me this, and tell me no more, is His Lordship's Dilemma lost? I have been able to find Pool Sharks on YouTube but no sign of t'other.



Yep, HIS LORDSHIPS DILEMMA is currently missing.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Mike O'Regan
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:04 pm

Re: Cinevent Notes Past: MISSISSIPPI (1935) with W. C. Field

Postby Mike O'Regan » Sun Jul 27, 2014 3:32 pm

Is all his other silent stuff still around?

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2203
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Cinevent Notes Past: MISSISSIPPI (1935) with W. C. Field

Postby Richard M Roberts » Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:00 pm

Mike O'Regan wrote:Is all his other silent stuff still around?



Nope, THAT ROYLE GIRL, THE POTTERS, and the three with Chester Conklin, TWO FLAMING YOUTH, TILLIES PUNCTURED ROMANCE, AND FOOLS FOR LUCK are currently missing.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Mike O'Regan
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:04 pm

Re: Cinevent Notes Past: MISSISSIPPI (1935) with W. C. Field

Postby Mike O'Regan » Thu Jul 31, 2014 3:39 pm

So, this Goodman character. He sued Fields and won some damages, yet, a few pages later, they're friends as if nothing had happened. The book doesn't really go into it and I suppose it's not terribly important. But, as an indication of Fields' character, did he just forgive and forget? Is anybody more familiar with this? Just wondered.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests