The โ€œcrazy coonโ€ and the โ€œhighvoiced fagโ€: Jello and the Language of Revolution

Language is to me one of the main pulls of the no longer popular, be it American radio comedy of the 1940s or the serial novels of the Victorian era. That is to say, the absence of the kind of language we refer to as โ€œlanguageโ€ whenever we caution or implore others to mind theirs. Mind you, all manner of โ€œlanguageโ€ escapes me in moments of physical or mental anguish; but, once I hit the keyboard, whatever hit me or made me hit the roof is being subjected to a process of Wordsworthian revision. You know, โ€œemotion recollected in tranquility.โ€

If the revisions come off, what remains of the anger or hurt that prompted me to write has yet the kind of medium rare severity that renders expressed thought neither raw nor bloodless. No matter how many words have been crossed out, the recollection still gets across whatever made me cross in the first place, and that without my being double-crossed by lexical recklessness.

Writing with restraint is not a matter of adopting certain mannerisms to avoid being plain ill-mannered. Obscurity is hardly preferable to obscenity. The trick is to create worthwhile friction without resorting to diction unworthy of the causeโ€”without using the kind of words that just rub others the wrong way. I was certainly rubbed so when, researching old-time radio, I brushed up on Amiri Barakaโ€™s Jello (1970), no doubt the angriest piece of prose ever to be written about the American comedian Jack Benny (seen here, dressing up as Charleyโ€™s Aunt).

Jello was penned at a time when many Americans who grew up listening to Benny retreated into nostalgia rather than face, accept, let alone support the radical cultural changes proposed or, some felt, threatened by the civil rights movement. Baraka confronted this longing for the so-called good old days with a farce in which Bennyโ€™s much put upon valet Rochester refuses the services the public had longโ€”and largely unquestioninglyโ€”come to expect of the well-loved character.

What ensues is a riotโ€”albeit not one of laughsโ€”as Barakaโ€™s โ€œpostuncletomโ€ Rochester lashes out at his former master-employer and insists on forcefully taking the money out of which he believes to have been cheated during the past thirty-five years (according to Baraka’s rewriting of broadcasting history). Having found that โ€œlootโ€ in a bag of Jello, Rochester leaves Benny, Mary Livingstone, and Benny regular Dennis Day to their โ€œhorrible lives!โ€โ€”piled up on the floor like the corpses in a Jacobean revenge tragedy.

The plot of Jello is older than its messageโ€”the call to rise against the forces that made, made tame or threaten to unmake us; and the only startling aspect of Barakaโ€™s play is the aggressive tone in which that message is delivered, delivered, to be sure, to none but those already alive and receptive to his rallying call.

โ€œNo, Mary,โ€ Barakaโ€™s version of Benny insists, โ€œthis is not the script. This is reality. Rochester is some kind of crazy nigger now. Heโ€™s changed. He wants everything.โ€ The language alone signals that we are well beyond the grasp of the titular sponsor, beyond the code adopted in the summer of 1939 by the National Association of Broadcasters, according to which โ€œno language of doubtful proprietyโ€ was to pass the lips of anyone on the air.

As is the case in all attempts at policing language, the underlying thoughtโ€”the unsaid yet upheldโ€”might be more dubious still; and when Baraka picks up the word โ€œnigger,โ€ he gives expression to a hostility that could not be voiced but was played out in and reinforced by many of the networksโ€™ offerings. Indefensible, however, is his use of equally virulent language like โ€œstupid little queenโ€ and โ€œhighvoiced fagโ€ when referring to tenor Dennis Day or โ€œradio-dikey,โ€ as applied to Mary Livingstone. Staging revolution, Baraka is upstaged by revulsion. He has mistaken the virulent for the virile.

In those days and to such a mind, โ€œfagโ€ was just about the most savage term in which to couch oneโ€™s rejection of the unproductive and the non-reproductive alike. It was a monstrous word demonstrative of the fear of emasculation. It is that fearโ€”and that wordโ€”with which power and dignity was being stripped from those whose struggle for equality was just beginning during the days following the Stonewall Riots of 28 June 1969, from those whose fight was impeded by a fear greater and deeper even than racism.

Now, I’m no slandered tenor; but I have been affronted long enough by such verbiage to be tossing vitriol into the blogosphere, to be venting my anger or frustration in linguistically puerile acts of retaliation. If I pick up those words from the dust under which they are not quite buried, I do so to fling them back at anyone using them, whether mindlessly or with designโ€”but especially at those who inflict suffering in the fight to end their own. Our protests and protestations would be more persuasive by far if only we paid heed to the words we should strike first.

Related writings
โ€œA Case for Ellery Who?: Detecting Prejudice and Paranoia in the Blogosphereโ€
โ€œMartin Luther Kingfish?: Langston Hughes, Booker T. Washington, and the Problem of Representationโ€
โ€œJack Benny, Urging Americans to Keep Their Wartime Jobs, Catches Rochester Moonlighting in Allenโ€™s Alleyโ€


His Words, Her Voice: Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, and the Resonance of โ€œEnoughโ€

“Oh, I have seen enough and done enough and been places enough and livened my senses enough and dulled my senses enough and probed enough and laughed enough and wept more than most people would suspect.” This line, as long and plodding as a life gone wearisome, was recently uttered by screen legend Olivia de Havilland, now in her 90s. You may well think that, at her age, she had reason enough for saying as much; but Ms. de Havilland was not reminiscing about her own experiences in and beyond Hollywood. She was reciting the words of one of her most virile, dashing, and troubled contemporaries: Errol Flynn, who was born one hundred years ago, on 20 June 1909, and apparently had โ€œenoughโ€ of it all before he turned fifty, a milestone he did not live to enjoy.

In her brief talk with BBC Radio 3โ€™s Night Waves host Matthew Sweet, de Havilland talks candidly, yet ever so decorously, about her swash-buckled, devil-may-careworn co-star, about his temperament, his aspirations, his fears. Hers is an aged voice that has a tone of knowing in it. A mellow, benevolent voice that bespeaks understanding. A voice that comforts in its conveyance not of weariness but of awareness, a life well lived and not yet spent.

I could listen for hours to such a voice. I might not care for, learn from or morally improve by hearing what is saidโ€”but the timbre gives a meaning to โ€œenoughโ€ that the forty-something Flynn never lived to express or have impressed upon him. It is the โ€œenoughโ€ of serenity, the โ€œenoughโ€ of gratitude, the โ€œenoughโ€ of not asking for more and yet not asking less . . . or stop asking at all.

My own life is marked and marred by a certain lack of inquisitiveness, it sometimes strikes me. Being blasรฉ is one of the first masks we don not to let on that we donโ€™t know enough, that we know as much, but donโ€™t know enough simply to ask. I wore such a mask of vainglory when I set out in life, the dullest of lives it seemed to me. My fellow employees had a nickname for me then.

It was my moustache that inspired it. Errol Flynn they called me. Little did they know that, even at age 20, I felt that I had โ€œenoughโ€ even though I so keenly felt that I had not had much of anything at all. I simply had enough of not even coming close to the glass of which I might one day have had my fill; but, for three long years, I did not have sense enough to leave that dulling life behind. No voice could talk me out of that barren existence but my own.

It was not easy for me to regain a sense of curiosity; it was as if the pores beneath the mask had been clogged after being concealed so long, my skin no longer alive to the breeze and its promises. I had brushed off more than I dared to absorb. One morning, I took a walk around Central Park with one of Errol Flynnโ€™s leading ladies, Viveca Lindfors, and was neither startled nor thrilled; nor did I not seize the opportunity to inquire about her past or permit her to draw me into her presence as she offered me advice and assistance.

Instead, I preserved the sound of her voice on the tape of my answering machineโ€”like a butterfly beyond the magic of flightโ€”her words saying that she had enough of me was dispensing of my humble services as her dog walker. I am left with canned breath, quite beyond the chance of living what might have been a great story.

Enough of my regrets. I can only hope that, when next I feel that I had โ€œenough,โ€ the word will sound as if it were uttered in what I shall henceforth refer to as a de Havilland sense, with dignity, insight and calmโ€”and an acceptance that is not resignation.

Radio at the Movies: Torch Singer (1933)

โ€œYoo-hoo, is anybody?โ€ I guess that, from time to time, many of us amateur journalists feel compelled to ask the question so catchily phrased by the matriarch of the Goldbergs. At least Molly Goldberg could hope for a response from her friend and neighbor Mrs. Bloom, to whom her shouts into the dumb waiter shaft were directed. To Mrs. Goldberg, โ€œanybodyโ€ was a certain someone. Many who approached the World Wide Web as their means of telecommuning have given up on waiting for a reply to their โ€œYoo-hoos,โ€ or, instead, have taken the resounding silence for an answer equivalent to โ€œnope.โ€

According to a 2008 survey conducted by Technorati (which, earlier this month, was referred to in a New York Times article on the blogging phenomenon), 95 percent of all online journals have been essentially abandoned. Tens of millions who saw blogging as an opportunity to cast their thoughts broadly and make their voices heard by the multitudes decided that, once this vast crowd of followers did not, well, immaterialize, their words were wasted on the one or another for whose arrival they would not be dumb enough to wait and to whose apparently exclusive tastes they would not lower themselves to cater.

Like broadcasting before it, the blogosphere lures those creative spirits who might otherwise be dispirited nobodies with that one-in-a-million chance at fame while its ability to connect us to the one-in-a-million willing to connect with us frequently goes unappreciated. As public performers, we wonโ€™t settle for โ€œanybodyโ€โ€”but we seem more inclined to aim at the elusive everyone than the dependable someone. One of the most intriguing motion pictures to address our narrow-mindedness about broadcasting is the Depression-era melodrama Torch Singer (1933), one of those startlingly unconventional, non-classic Hollywood pictures referred to as Pre-Code.

Torch Singer stars Claudette Colbert as an unwed mother (that is Pre-Code for you) who, failing to find employment, is forced to give up her infant daughter. After that intimate bond is severed, the motherless child of a childless mother avenges herself on an impersonal, dehumanizing society by tantalizing those who made her suffer, selling the mere appeal of sex to the highest bidder. โ€œGive Me Liberty or Give Me Love,โ€ she warbles, achieving neither. Her body having been robbed of its fruit and the warmth of nestling, she turns her voice into a commodity, first by making a(nother) name for herself a nightclub singer, then by accepting the offer to become a disembodied siren on the radio.

When a newly hired storyteller for a childrenโ€™s program is struck dumb with mike fright, the reckless Torch Singer takes over as the fictitious โ€œAunt Jenny,โ€ comforter by proxy, singing lullabies so far removed from any cradle that they are devoid of sincerity, all the while tickled by her own moxie as she promotes the sponsorโ€™s kiddie beverage, long drink in hand.

This perversion of motherhood comes to an end when she realizes that it is possible to subvert the medium instead and seize the microphone to reach the child she gave up for adoption. Rather than performing for everyone and no one, she now sings directly to her daughter, devising a contest that would compel radio listening kids to call in and claim their birthday surprises, thereby revealing their identity to her. Once taken into her own hands, the very medium that seemed to have promised nothing but the belated fame for which she never cared becomes the means through which she can reestablish the intimacy she long believed to be past recapturing.

Its melodramatic shortcomings notwithstanding, Torch Singer serves as a compelling reminder that the media, as extensions or offshoots of telecommunication, have not lostโ€”and should never be divested ofโ€”their potential to establish point-to-point connections far more meaningful than the often disappointing stabs at mass exposure in which we are apt to lose sight of one another.

Related writings
โ€œBetween You, Molly and Me: Should We Settle for Squirrels?โ€
โ€œWireless Women, Clueless Men (Part Five): Gertrude Berg, Everybody’s Mamaโ€


โ€œ. . . just born to do itโ€: A Baby Crierโ€™s Audition

โ€œZiss is mine shtory, ja? Zo, bleeze, vill you be stumm and let me finish,โ€ Tante Ilse burst out in her inimitable take on the English language. When she got that way, sheโ€™d assault her adopted tongue like an ill-tempered schnauzer tears at a bunch of newly arrived letters. If you were quick enough, you could just gather the pieces and make out the message intended. Tante Ilse was becoming a little impatient with me. Okay, so I was the impatient one. My finger kept hovering over the red button, and I was anxious to get the tape rolling again. Recording her story was a project that had been going on for several weeks already, ever since I found out that Ilse Hiss, my dear old, bratwurst and sauerkraut-loving great-aunt had a past in show business. Strictly speaking, it was the no-show business. Yes, Tante Ilse had once been a voice on the radio, even though hers wasnโ€™t much of a speaking part. She had been a professional baby crier. A baby crier! Who among those of us not old enough to remember tuning in to the Barbours of One Manโ€™s Family had ever heard of such a bewildering offspring of the dramatic arts!

I just had to ask; and even though I didnโ€™t have to twist her arm to get the whole story, Tante Ilse refused to reminisce about her radio days in any way straightforward or logical; least of all, chronological. I still didnโ€™t quite understand how she had gotten into radio in the first place. โ€œAnd by crying!โ€ I marveled, โ€œHow did you even know there was a market for it?โ€

โ€œAch, der market. Dat vas just a little Hungarian delicatessen, a block away. Right over there, where zey built zat, zat shkyshcratcher. Pfui! I did most of my grocery shopping zere. When it vas a market, of course. You would have loffed dat shtore!โ€ As exasperating as such detours could be, attempting to get Tante Ilse back on track by explaining just what I meant by โ€œmarketโ€ would have been the worst thing to do at that moment. Besides, in a roundabout fashion, Tante Ilse appeared to have gotten to the beginning at last, when, to my great surprise and still greater relief, she added: โ€œAnd datโ€™s where it all shtarted.โ€

It was back in the mid-1940s, shortly after the end of the war. Tante Ilse had long found out that the sidewalks of Manhattan were not paved with precious metal; she had been pounding them long enough. Her brother Heini (my grandfather) had disappeared somewhere, leaving her to fend for herself, sowing, cleaning, taking whatever job she could find. Yorkville was a German enclave then; but Tante Ilse did not want to be reminded of the Heimat and was suspicious of those among her neighbors still proud to be the sprout of a Kraut. Her pride and her principles kept her from borrowing as much as a cup of sugar.

Things might have been worse if it hadnโ€™t been for the housing shortage and the My-Sister-Eileen deal she had going on with a typist who moved into the room vacated by Opa Heini; except that this particular Eileen was no relation and paid handsomely for her share of Tante Ilseโ€™s place. Incidentally, that share eventually became my room when I arrived in New York in the 1980s, when I followed the โ€œAuswanderer,โ€ the expatriates in my family.

Unfortunately, the typist also took work home; and the noise she made on that old Adler of hers often drove Tante Ilse to distractionโ€”and straight out of her quarters. Now, before you say Iโ€™m getting to be even worse than my periphrastic relative, let me point out that, on that fateful evening, the noises produced on the old Adler precipitated my great-aunt right to the spot where it all began. The Hungarian market, where Tante Ilse had come to splurge on a bunch of grapes. โ€œCraips. And zour ones, too!โ€ she chuckled. So I pressed the red button and off she went.

She must have been pretty cranky when she got down to Nรฉmethโ€™s deli, what with the crowded walk-up, the summer heat, and the noisy typewriter. A bawling tyke was all she needed as she waited in line to pay for her purchase (and to hear whether there was any news about Mrs. Nรฉmethโ€™s boy, a Private First Class not yet returned from Europe). Sure enough, there was just such a noisemaker in store for her. It was Mrs. Webberโ€™s youngest, rather too young, some whispered, to make recently discharged Mr. Webber a proud father. Apparently, even the issue was beginning to cry foul.

Matters werenโ€™t helped any when Tante Ilse tried to restore serenity by offering Webber (or not) Junior one of those sour berries. โ€œYou never heard zuch bawling,โ€ she insisted, covering her ears as if, nearly half a century on, there still lingered the threat of a reverb in the old neighborhood.

So, what did Tante Ilse do? She leaned over the baby carriage, grinned none too endearingly, and hollered right back. To the surprise of everyone in the store, including her own, she aped the little imp so perfectly that even the mocked one shut up and listened in awe. โ€œDen, der whole shtore was shtill. Nobody could belieff it. Vair vas dat zound coming vrom? Den, dey all looked at me. Vas I a freak or a hero? Dat I donโ€™t know.โ€

โ€œMove over Baby Snooks,โ€ I added, โ€œThe worldโ€™s oldest toddler was born.โ€ I had hoped that the radio reference would encourage her to tell me just how that audition led to a career in broadcasting. โ€œI had a talent, alleright; but vat vas I going to do viz it?โ€ I knew my cue and stopped the recording. I had to wait for the next installment; and Tante Ilse, unlike network radio, followed a most erratic schedule . . .

If you visch, I mean, wish, you may listen to my own reading of Tante Ilse’s story here.

Related writings
The Baby Crier, part one
โ€The Black Sheep and the Baby: A Kind of Christmas Storyโ€

Clash by Day: A D-Day Reminder

It was a crisp, bright afternoon in April when we visited Trebah Garden, one of the most beautiful spots in all of Cornwall. The sun had come out from behind a curtain of threatening clouds and the air was fragrant with a promissory note of summer that even the leafless, wintry trees in the distance were powerless to gainsay. As we walked down the sloping path, past the Rhododendron and Magnolias, beyond the dell of young Gunnera plants that, in time, would grow into a subtropical jungle, we reached a gate that led to a secluded beach. The sea was calm, peaceful the prospect; and even though the name of Trebah had been recorded in the Domesday Book, I felt far removed from the affairs of the world, present and past, as if sheltered in a reserve beyond the reach of history.

When I turned back toward the gate, that sense of detachment was shattered in an instant. I was reminded just how connected I was, even here, with the history of the world. I was yanked out of this perceived Eden by no uncertain notice of our fall: a sign telling me that, from it this secluded spot, thousands went into battle to secure the peace that I had enjoyed.

The memorial at Trebah tells of the 175th Combat Team of the 29th US Infantry Division, some 7,500 strong. On the 1st of June in 1944, those men embarked from that very beach to take part in the D-Day landings and, by carrying out their duty, face all but certain death.

โ€œThis is the hour,โ€ Edna St. Vincent Millay wrote in her โ€œPoem and Prayer for an Invading Army,โ€ recited by Ronald Colman during a special radio broadcast on D-Day,

this is the appointed time.
The sound of the clock falls awful on our ears,
And the sound of the bells, their metal clang and chime,
Tolling, tolling,
For those about to die.
For we know well they will not all come home, to lie
In summer on the beaches.

And yet weep not, you mothers of young men, their wives,
Their sweethearts, all who love them wellโ€”
Fear not the tolling of the solemn bell:
It does not prophesy,
And it cannot foretell;
It only can record;
And it records today the passing of a most uncivil age,
Which had its elegance but lived too well,
And far, o, far too long;
And which, on Historyโ€™s page,
Will be found guilty of injustice and grave wrong.

At Trebah Garden, where a Military Day is still being held each year, I was found guilty of the โ€œgrave wrongโ€ it is to be walking in the splendor of oblivion. I shall not soon forget that sudden admonishment, that unsought clash by day.

Related recording
โ€œPoem and Prayer for an Invading Armyโ€ (6 June 1944)

โ€œ. . . and it was built to lastโ€: A Message from Buchenwald

I rarely hear from my sister; sometimes, months go by without a word between us. I have not seen her in almost a decade. Like all of my relatives, my sister lives in Germany. I was born there. I am a German citizen; yet I have not been โ€œhomeโ€ for nearly twenty years. It was back in 1989, a momentous year for what I cannot bring myself to call โ€œmy country,โ€ that I decided, without any intention of making a political statement about the promises of a united Deutschland, I would leave and not return in anything other than a coffin. I donโ€™t care where my ashes are scattered; it might as well be on German soilโ€”a posthumous mingling of little matter. This afternoon, my sister sent me one of her infrequent e-missives. I was sitting in the living room and had just been catching up with the conclusion of an old thriller I had fallen asleep over the night before. The message concerned US President Obamaโ€™s visit to Buchenwald, the news of which had escaped me.

Just in time, I turned on the television to listen to the Presidentโ€™s speech, and to the words of Buchenwald survivor Elie Wiesel. I was relieved to hear the President talk of the Nazis as โ€œhuman.โ€ His predecessor would no doubt have resorted to โ€œevil.โ€ How much more meaningful is the word โ€œhumanโ€โ€”an acknowledgment of shared responsibility that forces us to relate rather than stand apart from any presumably unmitigated horror, thereby encouraging us to look at ourselves as potentially capable of the acts we are so eager to denounce as โ€œinhuman.โ€

I was stirred, too, by the seemingly incongruous message of Elie Wiesel, who expressed himself at once doubtful and full of hope, who spoke of the futility of war at the very site of triumph over tyranny. Yet how can one avoid resorting to the violence of the paradox, whether used in the despair of reason or for the purpose of achieving the kind of harmony the metaphysical poets knew as โ€œdiscordia concorsโ€? How else, if at all, can one account for the life and deaths at Buchenwald, for the monstrously rational, the efficiently profligate, the methodically mad?

One of the first Americans to have witnessed and documented Buchenwald shortly after its liberation was CBS news commentator Edward R. Murrow. On 15 April 1945, three days after first setting eyes on the concentration camp, Murrow confronted his listeners with a report prefaced by the following disclaimer:

Permit me to tell you what you would have seen and heard had you been with me on Thursday. It will not be pleasant listening. If youโ€™re at lunch, or if you have no appetite to hear what Germans have done, now is a good time to switch off the radio. For I propose to tell you of Buchenwald.

Bringing his eyewitness account to the ears of his fellow Americans, Murrow yokes together the incongruous to evoke the incalculable. Putting his finger on the imbalance of recorded figures and observable facts, he weigh in on the scale of humanityโ€™s failure and thereby succeeds in making the measureless ponderable. Broad statistics are presented alongside minute details. Observations of suffering are contrasted with references to Buchenwald as the โ€œbest concentration camp in Germany,โ€ a camp โ€œthat was built to lastโ€ yet built for annihilation.

Murrow speaks of an orderly pile of bodies, a prominent political figure starved beyond recognition, a warning against pickpockets in a scene of horrendous crime, and a new beginning of Buchenwaldโ€™s internees that coincided with the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

At one point, Murrowโ€™s report takes us into a โ€œcleanโ€ kitchen that supplies next to no food:

[The German prisoner, a communist, in charge of the kitchen] showed me the daily ration: one piece of brown bread about as thick as your thumb. On top of it a piece of margarine as big as three sticks of chewing gum. That, and a little stew, was what they received every twenty-four hours. He had a chart on the wall. Very complicated it was. There were little red tabs scattered through it. He said that was to indicate each ten men who died. He had to account for the rations, and, he added, “We’re very efficient here.โ€

โ€œIf I have offended you by this rather mild account of Buchenwald,โ€ Murrow adds, โ€œI am not in the least sorry.โ€ After all, had he not begun his report with the incongruous invitation to โ€œswitch off the radioโ€?

I knew switching off only too well. As a child and adolescent growing up in West Germany, I felt the incongruousness of being a good German keenly. I was raised in a small village in which a synagogue rotted away unnoticed, history and hope debased as a pigsty. At school, classmates echoed their parents by defending Hitler as the builder of the Autobahn; at home, my paternal grandmother openly spoke of her awareness of what was happening to her Jewish neighborsโ€”and then severed her connections by reducing me to the pink triangle I had pinned on myself by coming out.

I have been weighed down by collective guilt. I have lived under the terror of the extreme left and experienced the lure of the ultra-right as a stance of ultimate defiance. I failed to reconcile my responsibilities of facing history with any chance of personal happiness. So I left.

Perhaps I have been on the run ever since; trying to distance myself from the past I made my present an evasion. My life abroad has been, by and large, an existence in the neither here nor there, its escapism more shameful than my inescapable origins. Yet how else can we expect to make a clean start of it if our feet remain stuck in the soil we are anxious to shake?

It was with some unease that I realized just what I had been watching before my sister returned me to the reality of now: a neat puzzle in which every murder is accounted for and executed according to plan; a โ€œvery efficientโ€ murder mystery that reduces horror to a formula borrowed from an old and politically incorrect nursery rhyme; film released, no less, in the year of the death camp liberations. You see, before I listened to the speeches at Buchenwald I had been counting down bodies in And Then They Were None.


Related recording
Edward R. Murrowโ€™s report from Buchenwald (15 April 1945)

Related writings
โ€œThe Wannsee Konferenz Maps Out the Final Solutionโ€
โ€œArthur Miller Asks Americans to “Listen for the Sound of Wings”
โ€œFrom the House of Terrorโ€

Manus Manum . . . Love It: Lever Brothers Get Their Hands on Those Nine Out of Ten

“Ladies and gentlemen. We have grand news for you tonight, for the Lux Radio Theater has moved to Hollywood. And here we are in a theater of our very own. The Lux Radio Theater, Hollywood Boulevard, in the motion picture capital of the world. The curtain rises.โ€

Going up with great fanfare on this day, 1 June, in 1936, that curtain, made of words and music for the listening multitude in homes across the United States, revealed more than a stage.  It showed how an established if stuffy venue for the recycling of Broadway plays could be transformed into a spectacular new showcase for the allied talents at work in motion pictures, network radio, and advertisement.

Marlene Dietrich and Clark Gable at the premiere of the revamped Lux Radio Theater program

โ€œFrankly, I was skeptical when the announcement first reached this office,โ€ Radio Guideโ€™s executive vice-president and general manager Curtis Mitchell declared not long after the Hollywood premiere. The program was โ€œan old production as radio shows go,โ€ Mitchell remarked, one that was โ€œrich with the respect and honorsโ€ it had garnered during its first two years on the air. Why meddle with an established formula?

Mitchellโ€™s misgivings were soon allayed. The newly refurbished Lux Radio Theater had not been on the air for more than two weeks; and Radio Guide already rewarded it with a โ€œMedal of Meritโ€โ€”given, so the magazine argued, โ€œbecause its sponsors had the courage to make a daring moveโ€ that, in turn, had โ€œincreased the enjoyment of radio listeners.โ€ Thereโ€™s nothing like a new wrinkle to shake the impression of starchiness.

โ€œI cannot help but feel,โ€ Mitchell continued, that the “two recent performances emanating from Hollywood have lifted it in a new elevation in public esteem. Personally, listening to these famous actors under the direction of Cecil De Mille, all of them broadcasting almost from their own front yards, gave me a new thrill.”

That DeMille had, in fact, no hand in the production did little to diminish the thrill. An open secret rather than a bald lie, the phony title was part of an elaborate illusion. The veteran producer-director brought prestige to the format, attracted an audience with promises of behind-the-scenes tidbits, and sold a lot of soap flakes throughout his tenure; and even if the act wouldnโ€™t wash, he could always rely on the continuity writers to supply the hogwash.

As DeMille reminded listeners on that inaugural broadcast (and as I mentioned on a previous occasion), Lux had โ€œbeen a household word in the DeMille family for 870 years,โ€ his family crest bearing the motto โ€œLux tua vita mea.โ€ Oh, Lever Brother!

Perhaps the motto should have been โ€œManus manum lavat.โ€ After all, that is what the Lux Radio Theater demonstrated most forcibly. In the Lux Radio Theater, one hand washed the other, with a bar of toilet soap always within reach. As I put it in Etherised Victorians, my doctoral study on the subject of radio plays, it

was in its mediation between the ordinary and the supreme that a middlebrow program like Lux served to promote network programming as a commercially effective and culturally sophisticated hub for consumers, sponsors, and related entertainment industries.

With DeMille as nominal producer and Academy Award-winner Louis Silver as musical director, the new productions came at a considerable cost for the sponsor: some $300 a minute, as reported in another issue of Radio Guide for the week ending 1 August 1937. Of the $17,500 spent on โ€œThe Legionnaire and the Lady,โ€ the first Hollywood production, $5000 went to Marlene Dietrich, while co-star Clark Gable received $3,500. Those were tidy sums back the, especially considering that the two leads had not even shown up for rehearsals.

The investment paid off; a single Monday night broadcast reportedly attracted as many listeners as flocked to Americaโ€™s movie theaters on the remaining days of the week. As DeMille put it in his introduction to the first Hollywood broadcast, the audience of the Lux Radio Theater was โ€œgreater than any four walls could encompass.โ€ Besides, the auditorium from which the broadcasts emanated was already crowded with luminaries.

โ€œI see a lot of familiar faces,โ€ DeMille was expected to convince those sitting at home: โ€œThereโ€™s Joan Blondell, Gary Cooper (he stars in my next picture, The Plainsman), Stuart Erwin and his lovely wife June Collier.โ€

Also present were Al Jolson, Ruby Keeler, and Franchot Tone. โ€œAnd I, I think I see Freddie March,โ€ DeMille added in a rather unsuccessful attempt at faking an ad lib. While there is ample room for doubt that any “nine out of ten” of those stars named actually used Lux, as the slogan alleged, they sure made use of theย Lux Radio Theater. It was an excellent promotional platform, a soapbox of giant proportions.

A visit to the Lever Art Gallery in Port Sunlight

As I was reminded on a trip to the Lady Lever Art Gallery in Port Sunlight last year, Lever Brothers had always been adroit at mixing their business with other peopleโ€™s pleasure. Long before the Leverhulmes went west to hitch their wagon on one Hollywood star or another, they had disproved the Wildean maxim that the greatest art is to conceal art and that art, for artโ€™s sake, must be useless.

It is owing to the advertising agents in charge of the Lever account that even the long frowned upon โ€œcommercialโ€ did no longer seem quite such a dirty word.


Related recording

“The Legionnaire and the Lady,โ€ Lux Radio Theater (1 June 1936)

Related blog entries

“Cleaning Up Her Act: Dietrich, Hollywood, and Lola Lolaโ€™s Laundryโ€

Tyrone Power Slips Out to War on a Bar of Soapโ€

โ€œAfter Twenty Years of Pushing Stars and Peddling Soap, a Hollywood Institution Closes Downโ€

Television and the Individual Talent

Edwin C. Hill

“What happens to these ambitious people after their first appearance? Do they go on, succeed, become famous and lead the lives theyโ€™d dreamed of living? Or, after a brief glimpse of glory, do they return, disappointed and broken, into the humdrum lives theyโ€™d led before?โ€ Those are question many viewers feel compelled to ponder after watching common folk like Susan Boyle perform on amateur competition programs like Britainโ€™s Got Talent. Now, Boyle did not win last nightโ€™s finale, and a chance to sing for the Queen; still, her audition turned the unassuming, middle-aged belter-weight into what we are wont to call an overnight sensation. She so captivated an international audience of television viewers and YouTubers that a movie deal and a musical seem pretty much in the bag, even though a career as a recording artist strikes me as somewhat less likely for La Boyle.

The worldโ€”or a considerable part of its too readily distracted populationโ€”fell in love with a moment, not with a voice. It was an instant in which our media-forged preconceptions about appearances in relation to ability was being checked in a way that was eye-opening without being cause for contrition. Boyle was duly rewarded for dealing with our initial cynicism, with the schadenfreude with which we approached her and to whose temporary check she so greatly contributed. Watching that performance was not so much a guilty pleasure as it was pleasurable guilt.

For anyone who has seen the audition performance (I only caught up with it online, days after the original broadcast), that sudden realization that she was proving us wrong by proving we had wronged her can never be recaptured. From now on, we simply expect a boffo performance worthy of all the ballyhoo. We are accustomed to the face and, having gladly suffered the momentary loss of ours, we keep our jaundiced eyes open for another chance to snicker and sneer. After all, as T. S. Eliot famously remarked in โ€œTradition and the Individual Talentโ€ (1919), โ€œcriticism is as inevitable as breathing.โ€

The thing is, though, that the above questions were not raised by a contemporary reviewer; rather, they were voiced on this day, 31 May, back in 1937, by American news commentator Edwin C. Hill. Hill was referring to the rise of the amateur hour, a programming format he called โ€œ[o]ne of the most interesting radio developments in recent yearsโ€ and commended as a โ€œvery human, very appealing movementโ€โ€”โ€œand a worthy one.โ€

The comment was made on Your News Parade, ostensibly with one Helen Gleason in mind:

Well, Saturday night on the radio, Helen Gleason answered this questionโ€”at least insofar as her particular case was concerned. Winning an Amateur Night Contest was the beginning of a brilliant career for Miss Gleason . . . a career which has carried her around the vaudeville circuits, through the concert halls of Europe, to the stage of the Metropolitan Opera Company . . . and more recently to stardom in operetta.

I say โ€œostensiblyโ€ because that blurb about the โ€œappealingโ€ talent show format was only another occasion to advertise cigarettes, Lucky Strike being the sponsor of Your News Parade. The media may create โ€œovernightโ€ sensations; but in their exploitation of such phenomena, in the milking of the cash cows of human kindness, they foster the very attitude of doubt that they make us question.

Somehow it has only gotten worse with the advent of video. On radio, Boyle might have had a chance to show off the talent she came to display and to be judged by that ability alone. It is television that makes us look like asses by encouraging us not to believe our ears . . .

[This post came to you a day late, on account of the exceptionally fine weather we’ve been enjoying.]

The Dionne Quintuplets: The Catโ€™s Pajamas . . . or Katzenjammer?

โ€œName your favorite radio star of 1950!โ€ an article in Radio Guide for the week ending 18 April 1936 appealed to its readership (reputedly some 400,000 strong). It wasnโ€™t a challenge to the clairvoyant or a call for votes in one of the magazineโ€™s popularity polls, as the implied answer stared you right in the face, a promise with five sets of peepers. โ€œThe chances are you wonโ€™t be far wrong if your list includes Cecile Dionne, or Yvonne or Annette or Emile or Marie.โ€ย  The famous Dionne Quintuplets, born on this day, 28 May, in 1934, were not yet two years old. No quintuplets before them had ever lived even that long; but their future in show business was already well mapped out for them, in contracts amounting to over half a million dollars.ย  Opposite screen veteran Jean Hersholtโ€”the quintessence of Hippocratic fidelityโ€”those essential quints had already starred in The Country Doctor, released in March 1936, to be followed up by Reunion later that year.

Quite a life for carpetful of rug rats once described as โ€œbluish-black in color, with bulging foreheads, small faces, wrinkled skin, soft and enlarged tummies, flaccid muscles and spider-like limbs!โ€ However fortunate to escape life as a sideshow attraction, the medical history makers could โ€œhardly avoid” being turned into celebrities and groomed for stardom.

“Whether they like it or not,” as the Radio Guide put it, “whether their guardians decree it, whether their parents give their permission, those five famous tots in Callander, Ontario, are the little princesses of the entire world. As such, they are already in and must remain in the public eye as long as the world demands them.”

Sure, the โ€œpublic eyeโ€ tears up at the sight of babies, bouncing or otherwiseโ€”but the public ear? Would audiences tune in to hear a quintet of babbling, bawling infants? And what of all those other noises, the blue notes producers did not dare to mention, let alone set free into the FCC-conditioned air? Publications like Radio Guide paid fifty bucks for a single photograph of the famous handful (even though various if not always authentic pieces of memorabilia could be had considerably more cheaply), and that at a time when you could get your hands on the Presidentโ€™s likeness for a mere five; but would a sponsor risk investing thousands in an act that could not hold a tune or stick to a script? As yet, there was no evidence that the media darlings could blossom into a veritable Baby Rose Marie garden.

Defending Radio Guideโ€™s continued attention to the Dionnes, editor Curtis Mitchell declared that, while the phenomenon โ€œhad little to do with radio,โ€ โ€œall the great personalities of every walk of life and every continentโ€ eventually stepped up to the microphone: “As entertainers they may not have the expertness of Eddie Cantor or Jack Benny but their gurgling and cooing will surely remind us of what a magnificent instrument for participating in the life about us young Guglielmo Marconi provided when he invented radio.”

Sure enough, radio kept the multitudes abreast of the Dionnes while gag writers worked their name into many an old routine. Baby Snooks could stay snug, though. The infantas of Quintland would not baby talk themselves into the hearts of American radio listeners. According to legend (as perpetuated by Simon Callow), it was Orson Welles whom producers called upon to supply the โ€œgurgling and cooingโ€ when the babies were featured on a March of Time broadcast.

Accompanied by their physician, guardian and manager, Dr. Dafoe, the Dionne girls would be paraded before the listening public on several occasions in the early 1940s, and were even heard singing on the air; but they never became the ultimate sister act that readers of Radio Guide, anno 1936, had been encouraged to anticipate. Seen rather than heard, they nonetheless remained a prominent feature on the advertising pages of the Guide and other radio-related publications. All those endorsement deals and money-making schemes make you wonder what the Million Dollar Babies might have said if only they had been permitted to get a word in . . .

Tonight at 8:30 (or Whenever It’s Convenient)

“You canโ€™t do without it. Supposing you wanna hear Jack Benny, see? But you canโ€™t be at home at that hour. So you tell the maid to turn the radio on when Jack Benny comes on, and this automatically goes on with the radio. . . .โ€ That is how big shot Howard Wagner goes on about his new wire recorderโ€”shortly before giving his old employee the ax. The employee is Willy Loman, the scene from Death of a Salesman. It is one of the references that came as a surprise to me yesterday morning when I reread the play I thought I was done with by the time I left college. At the time he wrote this Pulitzer Prize-winning piece, Miller had not long gotten out of the radio game and was rejoicing in his newfound artistic freedom; so he gives the speechโ€”and the speech recording deviceโ€”to the bad guy. Having previously gone on record to dismiss radio as commercial and corrupt, Miller now suggested how the medium was about to get worseโ€”that is, farther removed from live theater, from the immediate, the communal, and the relevant.

This โ€œwonderful machineโ€โ€”for which Mr. Wagner is ready let go of โ€œall [his] hobbiesโ€โ€”is a metaphor for the selfishness of a society that was moving so fast, it could not even give the time of day to its most beloved entertainersโ€”let alone a tired old man like Willy Loman. If Mr. Benny wanted to talk to Howard Wagner, he, like everyone else, had to wait for the hour appointed to him by the big noise.

โ€œYou can come home at twelve oโ€™clock, one oโ€™clock, any time you like, and you get yourself a Coke and sit yourself down, throw the switch, and thereโ€™s Jack Bennyโ€™s program in the middle of the night!โ€โ€”all for โ€œonly a hundred and a half,โ€ an amount for which Willy Loman is willing to work for three weeks and a half.

For decades to come, it was the industry that benefitted most from this new recording technology. Bing Crosby could walk into the studio when it suited his own schedule, rather than having to be there for the public who sat by the radio, as of old, to hear his program go on the air. Nowadays, the Willy Lomans are in charge of scheduling, of making time for whoever vies for their attention.

I would not go so far as to say that I โ€œcanโ€™t do withoutโ€ the latest recording software. It sure makes it easier for me to enjoy more of what I enjoy, though. The BBCโ€™s iPlayer has greatly changed my listening habits and increased the number of plays, documentaries, and musical selections I take in. Currently, I am listening to โ€œThe Better Half,โ€ a cheeky if dated sex comedy by Noel Coward. Written and performed in 1922, the unpublished one-acter about โ€œmodernโ€ marriage (in the traditional sense we canโ€™t seem to get past) was not staged again until 2007. Earlier this week, it had its broadcast debut on BBC Radio 4.

Okay, so the leading lady is not Gertrude Lawrence (star of radioโ€™s Revlon Revue back in 1943)โ€”but at least I wonโ€™t have to listen to Mr. Wagnerโ€™s precious offspring (โ€œListen to that kid whistleโ€) while begging for a moment of his time. After all, most of us donโ€™t get the impression that, as Noel Coward puts it in โ€œThis is a Changing Worldโ€ (with which the radio adaptation of โ€œThe Better Halfโ€ opens), โ€œ[t]ime is your tenderest friend.โ€ So, it feels good to push a few buttons and get the better of it . . .

Related recording
โ€œMeet Gertrude Lawrence,โ€ Biography in Sound (23 January 1955)