Some Mike It Hot: Tuning in Marilyn Monroe on the Eve of Her One-Hundredth Birthday

 

A portrait of Marilyn Monroe I attempted as a high schooler in the wake of the twentieth anniversary of her death

 Like I said in my previous post—and, this being the 871st entry in the broadcastellan journal, I might be excused for repeating myself or at least be expected to do so on occasion—“I readily admit to having a thing about anniversaries, however obscure.”  Now, there is nothing obscure about the one-hundredth birthday of one of Hollywood’s most enduring screen icons—Marilyn Monroe, to whose eightieth I devoted a blog entry two decades ago.  So much an icon (i.e., a devotional image) is Monroe that the endlessly reproduced sight of her parted lips has overshadowed the sound of the distinctive and, to me, equally enthralling coos and whispers emanating from them.

To this day, Monroe’s infrequent non-musical voice-only performances remain largely unheard or else are dismissed as not worth the bother of unearthing. And yet, regardless of the material Monroe was dealt with for recital, the sound of her voice on the air is itself an event. Broadcast though it was to the multitude, it has the capacity, when experienced with closed eyes and under cover of dark and duvet, to assume the for-your-ears-only confidentiality of a personal call or a confessional eavesdropped on clandestinely.  

Monroe’s voice rendered a hot mike redundant. At once torrid and tender, it smolders rather than blazes.  Carrying promises of pleasure and warmth, it has the charm of a lullaby sung on what could not be anything but a sleepless night of reverie.

Many such a night I spent as a teenage boy, alone in my room, listening to—and secretly performing—“Diamonds Are a Girl’s Best Friend,” a song whose title would later be echoed by one of English classes I used to teach in the Bronx, an inevitably queerly slanted literature seminar I  dubbed “Beyond Dogs and Diamonds: Portraits of American Friendships.”

Whatever the Strasberg “Method” contributed to or however it detracted from her emoting on screen, Monroe’s voice, which also underwent coaching, never lost the lure of a Lorelei.  You know, the mythological golden-haired seductress referenced by Anita Loos in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes: The Illuminating Diary of a Professional Lady (1925), a narrative whose popularity was eclipsed by the technicolor and stereophonic treatment it received in 1953, despite the inevitable watering down to which the rip-Roaring Twenties flapper chronicle was subjected.

It is no coincidence that Lorelei, the fabled temptress of my native Rhineland, first comes to mind when I think of Marilyn, a face, body and voice so well known that we, being overly familiar, tend to call her by the first of her professional names.  After all, watching her movies on German television in my youth, I did not actually get to hear Monroe.  The sound reel featured Margot Leonard (1927–2014), a much-in-demand voice-over artist who dubbed not only Marilyn Monroe but also lent her larynx to the likes of Kim Novak and Gracy Kelly.

I have already commented on the havoc German dubbing could wreak, The Prince and the Showgirl being a prime example.  By turning Elsie, Monroe’s Deutsch-speaking character French-American, the German version mutes “[w]hatever historical context there was” in the original—”the Balkan crisis leading to World War I”—to “leave nothing but a fairytale.”  

Considering that The Prince and the Showgirl is mostly that, anyway, I marvelled at the “pains the German film industry took during the late 1950s to change the background of this innocuous piece of popular culture so as to keep from those who came to see a bombshell any memories of bombs and shell shock.”  Muffled though the foreign intrigue became in Der Prinz und die Tänzerin, the loss—of which most viewers without access to the English-language version would have been unaware—was well made up for by Leonard at her most Monroesque.

In West Germany, Leonard’s voice became so closely associated with Monroe that, in 1982, on the twentieth anniversary of Monroe’s death, Leonard was called upon to resurrect the screen legend in a radio interview.  Glued to the receiver that day for soundings of Marilyn, my teenaged self had the finger on the recording button, catching part of the telephone conversation with Leonard, whose name was hardly a household one like Monroe’s.  When told by the interviewer that he had never seen her, Leonard sounded rather indignant.

All that second-hand exposure to Monroe on the air and on the small screen no doubt motivated my subsequent search for the real voices of Hollywood actors that eventually yielded my study Immaterial Culture.  It also led to a brief foray into podcasting.

When I started blogging in the mid-noughties, still consumed with the subject matter of my 2004 doctoral thesis Etherized Victorians, for which broadcastellan was meant to serve as a sequel of sorts, I was keenly aware that my chosen subject—at that time almost exclusively radiophonic—could be rendered less arcane by recordings of the performances about which I wrote.  To that end, I produced and narrated a series, short-lived though it was, of recordings featuring the on-air voices of legendary Hollywood actors—including silent screen vamps—and exploring the sound-only world of radio drama into which they breathed life or to which, at least, they brought a degree of glamor.

Since “The Voice of Marilyn” contained copyrighted sound recordings, it was rejected for publication on my YouTube channel.  In a wistfully reminiscent mood brought on by the centenary of Norma Jean’s nativity, I am revisiting the short script for the podcast to reflect on a few instances of Monroe’s disembodiment on the airwaves.

Continue reading “Some Mike It Hot: Tuning in Marilyn Monroe on the Eve of Her One-Hundredth Birthday”

“… this Land of the Cretin and Home of the Depraved”: US Radio Naysaying Anno 1926 and the Silencing of So-called “Legacy Media” in the Age of AI Slop

I was tickled—or, rather, pricked—by the snide remarks a certain John Wallace made in the April 1926 issue of Radio Broadcast, in which he expounded on “Radio and the Taste of the Nation.” In particular, Wallace took issue with the assertion that the new medium was threatening to turn the United States into the “Land of the Cretin” and the “Home of the Depraved.”

While not actual quotations, the phrases “Land of the Cretin” and “Home of the Depraved reflected, according to Wallace, the

utterances of any one of several of God’s private secretaries, expressed editorially in any one of several pastel colored periodicals on the occasion of that sage’s discovery of the existence of radio.

Their “pious pessimism,” so Wallace, was

that the taste of the American nation is lower than that of any other similar body of men on this sphere, and that, among the agents engaged in undermining it, radio promises to be one of the most effective.

“[I]n fact,” Wallace opined, the “custom of unfavorably comparing the kultur of America to that of any other nation,” was not restricted to the realm of broadcasting.  Adopted by and cultivated among his countrymen and women, it was an attitude rooted in the notion that “America, in respect to its appreciation of the ‘higher things” was an infant among nations.  The belief, according to Wallace, was so “widespread” as to constitute “one of the cardinal planks in the American credo.”

It finds place in our code of national convictions along side of such sacred tenets as “We must avoid all entangling alliances,” “The French do not know how to make coffee,” “Success is always the reward of effort,” “Newspaper men are conscienceless scoundrels,” “Abraham Lincoln was the incarnation of all virtue,” and “The Japs are a dangerous little people.”

As a US-educated ex-Academic mindful of his European perspective, I shall refrain from commenting on the US aversion to “entangling alliances,” other than allowing myself the aside that, one hundred years on, said view has experienced a remarkable resurgence in the age of MAGA and to pose the question, if only by the by, what America First might mean for the future of NATO.

And while I have nothing to say about the coffee culture of France, or about prejudicial views thereof, my musings on so-called “legacy media” such as radio and their reception does encourage me to consider the anti-wireless bias of which Wallace speaks vis-à-vis the effectively re-seeded and carefully nurtured suspicion that “Newspaper men are conscienceless scoundrels.”  

After all, never has anti-media bias in the United States been more pronounced than in the second coming of MAGA.

As I browse online century-old periodicals like Radio Broadcast in the year of the 250th anniversary of the US of A, I feel compelled to revisit yesteryear’s attitudes toward radio as a moronizing force in the context of today’s radically transformed media landscape, especially in light of the Trump administration’s weaponization of the FCC.  

Is ridding ourselves of traditional mass media making us more discerning consumers of news and entertainment?

Continue reading ““… this Land of the Cretin and Home of the Depraved”: US Radio Naysaying Anno 1926 and the Silencing of So-called “Legacy Media” in the Age of AI Slop”

“99% slush, hokum and flap-doodle”: Having Words with a Pugnacious Pundit

Walter Prichard Eaton’s words as printed in Vanity Fair, April 1926

“Who he?” I thought.  Or make that “hooey!” The “he” in question is Walter Prichard Eaton (1878–1957), a theater critic and academic of whose voice I first took note while flicking through the digitized pages of Vanity Fair’s April issue.  April 1926, mind.  The “hooey!” is Eaton’s, or rather, it is my response to his sweeping dismissal of motion pictures in an article titled “The Strangling of Our Theatre,” the first in a series of reports from the cultural battlefield that Vanity Fair billed as a “Symposium” on the “Future of the Theatre in America.”

In a succession of articles, prognostications on the fortunes of the theater in the United States were made by Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Sydney Howard (May issue), theater mogul Lee Shubert (June), independent theater manager Brock Pemberton (July), Ralph Block, production manager of the Famous Players-Lasky Film Corporation (August), and John Emerson, President of the Actor’s Equity Association (September).  Eaton’s response to them in the October 1926 issue of Vanity Fair drew the curtain on the “Symposium.”

Now that “Motion Picture Producers” were beginning to exert “direct control of the drama,” as the editors of Vanity Fair put it, a number of questions, however leading, arose:

Will this result in the production of only such plays as will make good motion pictures, in other words, cheap, obvious and sensational plays?

Will the intelligent minorities who are sponsoring non-commercial playhouses succeed where the commercial houses have failed?

Is our stage to lend itself still more to the standards of Moronia, or will a new theatre of the Intelligent Minority arise, overthrow the theatre of commerce and release the latent dramatic talent of America?

Now, “Symposium” literally means “drinking together.”  Perhaps the water cooler was contaminated to begin with, given this set-up, but the intemperance of Eaton’s verbiage has no convivial air about it.

What follows, which may well be “hooey” to you—or “flap-doodle,” to borrow the term used by Eaton that started me off on this tangent—is an attempt at having a word on having words: words as thought, words as theatrics, and words as troll.

Continue reading ““99% slush, hokum and flap-doodle”: Having Words with a Pugnacious Pundit”

“Wanted: A Radio Shakespeare”; or, Something Is Rotten in the State of Make-Believe

John Wallace’s column in the March 1926 issue of Radio Broadcasting, which offers an intriguing glimpse at a production of “Danger,” even though the play is not discussed

When it comes to second-hand knowledge, I can get a tad—permit the portmanteau—malcontentious.  You know, not just dissatisfied but downright disputatious.  It frustrates me not to be able to get straight to the source and having to rely instead on a privileged intermediary.

Owing to that frustration, I tend to quote extensively from the primary sources that I discuss so as to enable my readers, whoever they may be, to enter into a conversation with me on whatever matter I happen to advance for discussion.  I am not content to alert others, by way of a footnote, to materials to which they may not have immediate access or which they cannot be bothered to dig up when prompted.   Inquisitive as I am, I do not expect anyone to take my word for an elusive “it.”

Mind you, the “it” in question is not, say, the US-Israel war on Iran currently underway—a fact-based rationale for which has yet to be cogently articulated—but the special brand of make-believe known, by some, as Hörspiel—plays for the ear that came into being with the advent of broadcasting in the early 1920s.  It is that sort of ephemera to which I have devoted this journal, a blog whose title, broadcastellan, is another portmanteau I invented to cast myself as a keeper of the castles in the air that rose and crumbled in the early to mid-twentieth century, some exceptions notwithstanding.

Unlike silent films, almost none of the broadcasts of those pioneer days of wireless storytelling have survived, either as recordings or as scripts.  Hardly any have appeared in print, despite the fact that virtually all of them were scripted.  As a result, I am obliged to be told about them in contemporary reviews, which likewise are in short supply. 

Fact is, we do not today enjoy the same kind of access to early US radio plays than we do to motion pictures of the 1920s.  Too little has been preserved, mainly because, despite the existence of sound recording equipment, sound-only broadcasting was not thought of as anything but ephemeral, accountability, commercially understood, only just coming into being as a rationale for keeping records.

This gap—a lacuna not quite matata—leaves me, if not speechless, so at least without confidence adequately to respond to “Wanted: A Radio Shakespeare,” one such early second-hand account of radio listening.  The article was published in the March 1926 issue of Radio Broadcasting as part of a tauntingly titled column “The Listeners’ Point of View,” as represented by John Wallace, a critic whose remarks on the first radio play published in the United States I previously mentioned here.

Having referenced the article in Immaterial Culture, I did not return to it until now—”now” being the one-hundredth anniversary of Wallace’s remarks on, and recommendations for, the advancement of the radio play in the United States.

“Wanted: A Radio Shakespeare” is worthwhile picking up anew, considering that the attitudes toward the sound-only medium voiced by Wallace would remain valid for at least another decade, by which time, in the summer of 1936, the Columbia Workshop signaled that experimentation was, at last, however tentatively, being given a modicum of attention in US broadcasting.

Continue reading ““Wanted: A Radio Shakespeare”; or, Something Is Rotten in the State of Make-Believe”

“… despite the distortion of the curving horn”: The Wireless, the “Radario,” and the First “Step on the Stairs” (1926)

“What is the basic force that makes the human mind function?” The question was posed not at a symposium attended by noted philosophers and physicians, but to the readers of the 27 February 1926 issue of Radio Digest, who were subsequently asked:

What is telepathy? Is it not fundamentally Radio activity, a form of Radio transmission[?] Can the energy that starts a mass of brain cells into motion, that formulates thought and speech[,] be propelled as the voice is propelled from the vibration of the fragile filament in a vacuum tube? Does this energy ever die? Can it be attuned, converted into controlled ether wave movement, refined to audible sensitiveness?

Whoa! One question at a time, if you please—and, thinking as a public speaker—if you expect a question to sink in and elicit a response.  Other than “Whoa!” that is.  A bit of context would be helpful.

The above is not a passage from Upton Sinclair’s Mental Radio, a treatise written in the late 1920s, published in 1931, and endorsed by Albert Einstein.  As the notion that telepathy was “fundamentally” a form of wireless transmission suggests—apart from the fact that it was published in Radio Digest—the context in which the question was posed was wireless transmission—and radio “drama” in particular.

Offering listeners “an opportunity to win fame, honor and bags of gold” for the solution of a mystery about to commence, the editors of Radio Digest got more specific, explaining:

These are questions to be considered in the strange case of Peleg Turner in the first two chapters of A Step on the Stairs, appearing in this issue of Radio Digest.  Was it the voice of the dead Peleg that manifested itself, as he had predicted, through the Radio horn for the benefit of his heirs?

The WRC cast of A Step on the Stairs featuring Ted Husing (Radio Digest, 10 April 1926)

Call it ballyhoo or baloney, with those words, one of the earliest radio serials was launched in February 1926.

Continue reading ““… despite the distortion of the curving horn”: The Wireless, the “Radario,” and the First “Step on the Stairs” (1926)”

Live from the Lincoln Bedroom: Herbert Hoover Cautions Depression-Stricken Radio Listeners Against the “opiates of government charity”

“By the magic of the radio.”  Suitably charming if by then well-worn, the phrase served as the opening of a public address by the thirty-first president of the United States, Herbert Hoover.  Broadcast from the White House on this day, 12 February, in 1931, and occasioned by the birthday of Abraham Lincoln, the message conveyed in the speech that followed was decidedly less magical than the purported medium of enchantment by way of which it was delivered.

Address of the President on Lincoln’s Birthday (1931)

In lieu of a recording, the script published by US Government Printing Office serves as a reminder of Hoover’s inability to respond with understanding to the needs—and the mood—of the multitudes who tuned in to hear his words.  And while its initial reception is now difficult to gauge, the broadcast no doubt contributed to Hoover’s defeat the following year, on 8 November, when Franklin D. Roosevelt won the popular and electoral vote, carrying forty-two states.

FDR came to be known as “the radio president.”  His predecessor, however, had already made ample use of the medium, especially after the establishment of national chains—NBC in 1926 and CBS in 1927—significantly increased the possibility of reaching millions of US Americans instantly and simultaneously in their homes.

Just days after Hoover’s radio address on Lincoln’s Birthday in 1931, for instance, his administration launched a “drive against illiteracy in the United States” in cooperation with the Columbia Broadcasting System.  

There was little evidence of Hoover’s ability to read the room, however, as his voice passed through the four walls in which so-called members of the far from homogenous public sat alone or in intimate circles to learn about his response to the economic crisis that had left so many of them floundering.

Continue reading “Live from the Lincoln Bedroom: Herbert Hoover Cautions Depression-Stricken Radio Listeners Against the “opiates of government charity””

“It gets something off my chest, doesn’t it?”: Keeping Norman Corwin’s “Appointment” (1941) Because Liberty Won’t Keep in the Heat of Hatred

Cover of Thirteen by Corwin,
containing “Appointment,”
from my collection of radio-related literature

Speaking out against fascism—publicly and nationally, via the airwaves—used to be regarded in the United States of America as a moral imperative, or at least, in the terms of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as an act “in the public interest.”

These days, in the era of MAGA on steroids—and, to be clear, the first “A” in the acronym can be readily substituted to designate any number of imperiled democracies—fascism is no longer the anathema to democratic rule that it used to be understood as constituting.  

This is mainly because democracy itself—as a construct, an ideal and a reality—has become anathema to the members of a growing movement that is celebratory of autocracy and that, perversely and perfidiously, argues anti-fascism to be a threat to autocracy as a preferred system of streamlined government in which checks and balances are discarded and in which oppositional forces and alternative voices are denounced as deleterious and traitorous.

I had been meaning to write about the weaponization of the FCC in the wake of the cancellation and temporary or partial silencing of late night talk shows critical of the Trump administration; but for some reason, and via a route too tedious to trace, I happened, quite fortuitously, as it turns out, on a script for a radio play by poet-journalist Norman Corwin, the unofficial “poet laureate” of US radio during the early to mid-1940s.

I have already devoted a dozen or so posts to Corwin and his work, including plays as diverse as “A Man with a Platform,” “My Client Curley,” and “Seems Radio Is Here to Stay.”   

To this day, one of the most rewarding acknowledgments of my scholarly pursuits, such as they are, remains receiving word from Corwin expressive of his approval of my academic writings on him.

Although I have discussed many of Corwin’s writings for radio in Immaterial Culture, I had somehow failed to show up for his “Appointment”—a play first produced on 1 June 1941 as part of the cycle Twenty-six by Corwin.

Continue reading ““It gets something off my chest, doesn’t it?”: Keeping Norman Corwin’s “Appointment” (1941) Because Liberty Won’t Keep in the Heat of Hatred”

“The First Radio Play Printed in America”: “Sue ‘Em” (1925) and the Ensuing Question of Legitimacy

A photograph published in the April 1926 issue of Radio Broadcast
showing a young John Huston (left) and fellow members of the Provincetown Players

Here I go again.  Another broadcasting centenary, another radio “first.”  This “First,” mind, is wrapped in quotation marks, as the claim is not mine.  I am not going to dispute it, either, or challenge someone else to have the last word in the old “Who’s on First?” routine.  I have been there before.

Picture it: Early 2024.  I am commemorating the one-hundredth anniversary of radio “drama” at an event I staged with British playwright Lucy Gough at the National Library of Wales.  I set out by acknowledging the widely held assumption that Comedy of Danger by playwright-novelist Richard Hughes was the “first” original radio play to be broadcast … anywhere.

The claim served as a hook.  It was designed to underscore the international significance of the event.  At the same time, I tried to justify its happening in Wales by drawing attention to the play’s Welsh setting and the playwright’s affinity with the country.  More important to me than arriving at a definitive answer to the vexed question of whether Comedy of Danger should be regarded as the “first” of its kind are the shifting definitions of the term “radio play” on which, to my mind, hinges the answer to that question—or rather, its unanswerability and ultimate pointlessness.

After all, it is difficult to say what is “first” in any field if the field itself is not clearly delimited first, or if the field is so limitless that it defies delineation in the first place.  In the case of “radio play,” Hörspiel (play for listening) or radio drama—relatively arcane though this field of study may be—definitions not only vary greatly but are often not even attempted.

When is a play a radio play? That is a question I have been asking for a long time in my musings on the wireless, and it is a question I keep asking myself.  “When is a play a radio play” strikes me as a more useful way of framing the debate than the more obvious question “What is a radio play?” because the former encourages us to avoid the most perfunctory of answers: A radio play is a play written for and/or heard on the radio.  

Sure, on the surface it barely scratches, that statement sounds reasonable enough.  But are all plays written and produced for radio broadcasting radio plays by default? Is it the medium, then, that makes a play—any play—a radio play?

Not that “radio” as we understand or know it these days bears a close resemblance to “radio”—as a receiver set, a system, and a phenomenon—anno 1925, the year when Sue ‘Em, proclaimed by its publisher to be the “first radio play printed” in the USA, successfully made a play for first place in a radio playwrighting contest.

Continue reading ““The First Radio Play Printed in America”: “Sue ‘Em” (1925) and the Ensuing Question of Legitimacy”

Static and Spirits: Anarchic Airwaves, Prohibition, and the Return of Philo Gubb, Correspondence School “Deteckative”

Illustration for “The McNoodle Brothers’ Radio Mystery” in Radio News, Sept. 1923

Philo … Gubb? Never heard of him.  Nor, in all my years—make that decades—as a reader of detective fiction, had I come across, or become aware of, Ellis Parker Butler (1869–1937), the writer who brought Philo Gubb—“a tall, thin man, with the face and gait of a flamingo,” a paperhanger with a hankering for “deteckative” work—into a flurry of being.  Not until recently, that is.

Generally, I do not mind stumbling onto what might have been got at with greater ease and efficiency through methodical research.  I am aware that any perceived surprise on my part—that “Eureka!”-inducing moment of discovery—may be owing to an absence of assiduity.  That said, some of the most memorable encounters are made by chance, along circuitous routes.

In the case of Ellis Parker Butler and his brainchild Philo Gubb, though, I regret not having made the acquaintance of either of them sooner, given that this particular route led me back, unexpectedly, to the early days of broadcasting, about which Butler had much to say that might have been of interest and use to me in Immaterial Culture, my study of so-called old-time radio.

Now, Immaterial Culture does not pick up on the story of broadcasting until the network days of the late 1920s.  To gain an understanding how radio evolved, a look at prehistoric transmissions, albeit largely in the absence of sound recordings, is nonetheless instructive.  You cannot expect to “get” the cream of old-time broadcasting if you neglect an inspection of the cat’s whiskers for traces of same.

“There is a [loose] cannon”: Stephen Vincent Benét’s “Undefended Border” Revisited

The published script as it appeared in We Stand United, an anthology of radio plays by Stephen Vincent Benét and “decorated” by Ernest Stock.

I commenced this journal back in 2005.   It was intended as a continuation of, and promotional vehicle for, my doctoral study “Etherized Victorians: Drama, Narrative, and the American Radio Play, 1929–1954.”  Its title, broadcastellan, was meant to declare me to be keeper of a vast Luftschloss—a neglected alcazar of the air, immaterially composed of numberless radio recordings I determined to play back.

As of this post, broadcastellan is nearing its twentieth anniversary.  While I do not take this as an opportunity, let alone an excuse, to reissue older posts, I nonetheless wonder: When history seems to be repeating itself, perhaps I may be justified to do the same, if only to demonstrate that not every “been there” necessarily translates into a feeling of “done that,” and that not all twice-told tales are a rehash—not, at least, when you approach them from a perspective that has profoundly, even fundamentally, changed along with the context, your life experience and your attitude toward the world.

I devoted one early entry to “The Undefended Border” (1940), a play by Pulitzer Prize-winning poet Stephen Vincent Benét (1898–1943).  Revisiting it now, in the age of the MAGA tariff wars and annexation threats, I cannot but think of the loose cannon that is recklessly flouting, or at any rate tarnishing, the legacy of the rusty “lone cannon” commemorated in Benét’s play.

Continue reading ““There is a [loose] cannon”: Stephen Vincent Benét’s “Undefended Border” Revisited”