Discussion:
Jane Chaplin writes about CC: SEVENTEEN MINUTES WITH MY FATHER
(too old to reply)
Richard Carnahan
2006-01-27 18:28:05 UTC
Permalink
Chaplin daughter writes of brief glimpse of father

Fri Jan 27,10:46 AM ET


Jane Chaplin was 17 when she had her first proper conversation with her
aged father, the screen legend Charlie Chaplin, and now she is writing
a book about growing up with a man she hardly knew but the world still
recognizes as "The Little Tramp."

Entitled "Seventeen minutes with my father," it will be the first book
by any of the Chaplin children [aside of course from CC Jr.'s MY
FATHER, CHARLIE CHAPLIN and Michael Chaplin's I COULDN'T SMOKE THE
GRASS ON MY FATHER'S LAWN], she told Reuters in a street cafe Cartagena
on Colombia's Caribbean coast. She has lived a life of leisure in the
beautiful old port city for three years since a brief affair with a
Colombian.

"Writing, I've discovered that he was a very nice man. I was brought up
to believe he was a son of a bitch," said Chaplin, a slender
dark-haired woman in her late 40s who had previously tried her hand
unsuccessfully at screen-writing.

"He comes out fantastic in the book, yeah. My mother, on the other hand
..."

British-born Charlie Chaplin had eight children with Jane's mother
Oona, who was the daughter of American playwright Eugene O'Neil and was
37 years younger than her husband.


"She was always, I guess because of the age difference, always very
protective of him. You know: 'Don't disturb your father, because he's
working. Don't, he's busy. Don't tell him about that."'

Jane said she grew up fearing rather than knowing her father, and being
constantly told by her mother and by servants that that he was a genius
and she would never match him.

Chaplin, who was born in 1889, started his career in British music
halls but made his name in film in the United States, where he stayed
for around 40 years. He abandoned the country for Switzerland in 1952
after being accused of "un-American activities."

A PRIVATE CONVERSATION

Jane's father was already 68 years old when she was born, and she was
raised in the family home in Switzerland. A self-doubting adolescent
who did poorly at school, she didn't get her first proper chance to
speak to him alone until one day when her mother had to go out on an
errand in 1974, when she was 17.

"It had been a wish all my life, and so, she leaves, and I'm in the
library with him, and he's watching TV, a football game, but the sound
is down."

"He reached out and touched my hand and said 'Do you want to continue
watching this?"'

She didn't, and so began the only private conversation she ever had
with her father.

He said her mother had told him she was nervous about taking an exam
for acting school.

"In that conversation I discovered he had had a lot of doubts all his
life, that it hadn't been easy. I discovered the man, I guess."

Her father died in 1977 and her mother in 1991.

Jane thinks some of her siblings -- who include actress Geraldine
Chaplin -- could react poorly to elements of the book, although she
suspects they don't have any confidence in her ability to finish it.

"They probably all think, 'Oh, she probably abandoned the project."'

The book is now more than 400 pages long, although Chaplin has still to
start looking for a publisher.

"Maybe you could put it in your article that I'm looking for a literary
agent," she said.

Meanwhile, Chaplin, who still draws income from a family company
selling rights associated with their father's image and work, is trying
to write the final pages while participating in the hectic social
calendar of Cartagena.

"I wanted to finish before the end of the year but, with all the
partying going on, it's sort of difficult," she said.
Feuillade
2006-01-27 21:23:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Carnahan
Chaplin daughter writes of brief glimpse of father
Fri Jan 27,10:46 AM ET
Jane Chaplin was 17 when she had her first proper conversation with her
aged father, the screen legend Charlie Chaplin, and now she is writing
a book about growing up with a man she hardly knew but the world still
recognizes as "The Little Tramp."
Entitled "Seventeen minutes with my father," it will be the first book
by any of the Chaplin children [aside of course from CC Jr.'s MY
FATHER, CHARLIE CHAPLIN and Michael Chaplin's I COULDN'T SMOKE THE
GRASS ON MY FATHER'S LAWN], she told Reuters in a street cafe Cartagena
on Colombia's Caribbean coast. She has lived a life of leisure in the
beautiful old port city for three years since a brief affair with a
Colombian.
"Writing, I've discovered that he was a very nice man. I was brought up
to believe he was a son of a bitch," said Chaplin, a slender
dark-haired woman in her late 40s who had previously tried her hand
unsuccessfully at screen-writing.
"He comes out fantastic in the book, yeah. My mother, on the other hand
..."
British-born Charlie Chaplin had eight children with Jane's mother
Oona, who was the daughter of American playwright Eugene O'Neil and was
37 years younger than her husband.
"She was always, I guess because of the age difference, always very
protective of him. You know: 'Don't disturb your father, because he's
working. Don't, he's busy. Don't tell him about that."'
Jane said she grew up fearing rather than knowing her father, and being
constantly told by her mother and by servants that that he was a genius
and she would never match him.
Chaplin, who was born in 1889, started his career in British music
halls but made his name in film in the United States, where he stayed
for around 40 years. He abandoned the country for Switzerland in 1952
after being accused of "un-American activities."
A PRIVATE CONVERSATION
Jane's father was already 68 years old when she was born, and she was
raised in the family home in Switzerland. A self-doubting adolescent
who did poorly at school, she didn't get her first proper chance to
speak to him alone until one day when her mother had to go out on an
errand in 1974, when she was 17.
"It had been a wish all my life, and so, she leaves, and I'm in the
library with him, and he's watching TV, a football game, but the sound
is down."
"He reached out and touched my hand and said 'Do you want to continue
watching this?"'
She didn't, and so began the only private conversation she ever had
with her father.
He said her mother had told him she was nervous about taking an exam
for acting school.
"In that conversation I discovered he had had a lot of doubts all his
life, that it hadn't been easy. I discovered the man, I guess."
Her father died in 1977 and her mother in 1991.
Jane thinks some of her siblings -- who include actress Geraldine
Chaplin -- could react poorly to elements of the book, although she
suspects they don't have any confidence in her ability to finish it.
"They probably all think, 'Oh, she probably abandoned the project."'
The book is now more than 400 pages long, although Chaplin has still to
start looking for a publisher.
"Maybe you could put it in your article that I'm looking for a literary
agent," she said.
Meanwhile, Chaplin, who still draws income from a family company
selling rights associated with their father's image and work, is trying
to write the final pages while participating in the hectic social
calendar of Cartagena.
"I wanted to finish before the end of the year but, with all the
partying going on, it's sort of difficult," she said.
Let's see... 17 minutes, 400 pages...

That's 23.529 pages per minute. Or a third of a page per second.

That must have been *some* conversation! :)

Tom Moran
Shush
2006-01-27 21:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Carnahan
Jane's father was already 68 years old when she was born, and she was
raised in the family home in Switzerland. A self-doubting adolescent
who did poorly at school, she didn't get her first proper chance to
speak to him alone until one day when her mother had to go out on an
errand in 1974, when she was 17.
"It had been a wish all my life, and so, she leaves, and I'm in the
library with him, and he's watching TV, a football game, but the sound
is down."
"He reached out and touched my hand and said 'Do you want to continue
watching this?"'
She didn't, and so began the only private conversation she ever had
with her father.
She grows up in his house and he only really speaks to her ONCE in
twenty years?

If this isn't wildly exaggerated, it's the saddest thing I've ever
heard about Chaplin.



--Shush--
David Pearson
2006-01-28 03:58:13 UTC
Permalink
On 1/27/06 3:38 PM, in article
Post by Shush
She grows up in his house and he only really speaks to her ONCE in
twenty years?
If this isn't wildly exaggerated, it's the saddest thing I've ever
heard about Chaplin.
--Shush--
I'm afraid it may say a lot more about Oona.
Basically retired for 25 years, his children should have meant an awful lot.

DBP
James Neibaur
2006-01-28 04:38:49 UTC
Permalink
Richard Carnahan 1/27/06 12:28 PM
Post by Richard Carnahan
Chaplin daughter writes of brief glimpse of father
(snip)

I'll have to read this when it gets published never

JN
Feuillade
2006-01-28 05:34:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Neibaur
Richard Carnahan 1/27/06 12:28 PM
Post by Richard Carnahan
Chaplin daughter writes of brief glimpse of father
(snip)
I'll have to read this when it gets published never
Oh Jim, you're such a cynic.

This could end up being a classic along the lines of "Voyage Around My
Room."

Tom Moran
James Neibaur
2006-01-29 19:21:35 UTC
Permalink
Feuillade 1/27/06 11:34 PM
Post by Feuillade
Oh Jim, you're such a cynic.
This could end up being a classic along the lines of "Voyage Around My
Room."
Which means Jane's book will be somehow more palatable in the original
French?

JN
Candace
2006-01-29 22:57:21 UTC
Permalink
Jane Scovell's bio on Oona says essentially the same thing. CC's
youngest children scarcely spoke to him or he to them. The younger ones
spoke French around the nannies and amongst themselves, so Oona and CC
were out of the loop there as well.

CC was living a life of leisure in the 60's and there's no excuse for
him not at least attempting to connect with the second brood.

I don't see why Oona should be blamed for CC's utter and well
documented lack of parenting skills. Look how he treated CC, Jr. and
Sid. He didn't even see them for two years when they were little boys
and rarely saw CC, Jr. after 1952. It's pretty obvious that parenting
wasn't numbered among Charlie's talents.
George Shelps
2006-01-31 18:42:37 UTC
Permalink
Look how he treated CC, Jr. and Sid. He
didn't even see them for two years when
they were little boys and rarely saw CC,
Jr. after 1952. It's pretty obvious that
parenting wasn't numbered among
Charlie's talents.
Compare Harold Lloyd in the same
period. When his daughter's marital
strife made her unable to raise her own
daughter effectively, Harold took over
the parental role and raised little Suzanne as if he were her father.

And now Suzanne, instead of writing
tell-all Daddy-dearest books, has given
us a magnificent tribute to her
grandfather's comedy talent, the DVD Lloyd Collection.

(The collection amply validates Lloyd's status as (in Kevin Brownlow's
words) the "Third Genius" of screen comedy )







++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."
Shush
2006-01-31 19:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Shelps
Compare Harold Lloyd in the same
period. When his daughter's marital
strife made her unable to raise her own
daughter effectively, Harold took over
the parental role and raised little Suzanne as if he were her father.
And now Suzanne, instead of writing
tell-all Daddy-dearest books, has given
us a magnificent tribute to her
grandfather's comedy talent, the DVD Lloyd Collection.
I'm not sure I'd want to pin a good-parenting medal to Harold's
chest. He did a fine job raising Suzanne, but he also fathered a number
of illegitimate kids that he never acknowledged, kids who had to grow
up without the benefit of a father's influence.



--Shush--
Feuillade
2006-01-31 21:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shush
I'm not sure I'd want to pin a good-parenting medal to
Harold's chest. He did a fine job raising Suzanne, but
he also fathered a number of illegitimate kids that he
never acknowledged, kids who had to grow up without
the benefit of a father's influence.
Okay, I'm clearly behind the curve here.

Is *this* in the Dardis book (you'd think I'd remember if it was).

Has this been verified? Where exactly did you get this information?

And, assuming that it's true, who are these kids? And where are they
now?

Tom Moran
Shush
2006-01-31 21:59:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Feuillade
Post by Shush
I'm not sure I'd want to pin a good-parenting medal to
Harold's chest. He did a fine job raising Suzanne, but
he also fathered a number of illegitimate kids that he
never acknowledged, kids who had to grow up without
the benefit of a father's influence.
Okay, I'm clearly behind the curve here.
Is *this* in the Dardis book (you'd think I'd remember if it was).
Has this been verified? Where exactly did you get this information?
No, I don't think it is in the Dardis book. It *is* mentioned
obliquely in one of the Kenneth Anger books, which was the only place
I'd ever seen it mentioned in print. I was inclined to dismiss the
rumor until I had the pleasure of meeting the person who likely knows
more about Lloyd than anyone on Earth. (I'd name her, but she's had a
hot & cold relationship with the Lloyd estate and I don't want to make
that any worse, and if you've been reading the newsgroups lately you
know who I mean anyway!)

I asked her about the rumor and she confirmed it, adding that she's
even met one of Harold's unacknowledged daughters.

I'm not trying to make the case that Harold was a monster. He was a
complicated human being just like the rest of us, who did some good
things, some great things and some things that maybe he shouldn't have.
He did tremendous work for years raising money for Shriner hospitals,
which directly improved the lives of burned or crippled children. He
probably *saved* lives, something we can't really say about very many
old movie stars.



--Shush--
Feuillade
2006-02-01 00:20:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shush
Post by Feuillade
Post by Shush
I'm not sure I'd want to pin a good-parenting medal to
Harold's chest. He did a fine job raising Suzanne, but
he also fathered a number of illegitimate kids that he
never acknowledged, kids who had to grow up without
the benefit of a father's influence.
Okay, I'm clearly behind the curve here.
Is *this* in the Dardis book (you'd think I'd remember if it was).
Has this been verified? Where exactly did you get this information?
No, I don't think it is in the Dardis book. It *is* mentioned
obliquely in one of the Kenneth Anger books, which was the only place
I'd ever seen it mentioned in print. I was inclined to dismiss the
rumor until I had the pleasure of meeting the person who likely knows
more about Lloyd than anyone on Earth. (I'd name her, but she's had a
hot & cold relationship with the Lloyd estate and I don't want to make
that any worse, and if you've been reading the newsgroups lately you
know who I mean anyway!)
Yeah, I think most of us know who you mean.
Post by Shush
I asked her about the rumor and she confirmed it, adding that she's
even met one of Harold's unacknowledged daughters.
How many of them *are* there, anyway?

Which means that Harold Lloyd has unacknowledged grandchildren? Maybe
even great-grandchildren?
Post by Shush
I'm not trying to make the case that Harold was a monster. He was a
complicated human being just like the rest of us, who did some good
things, some great things and some things that maybe he shouldn't have.
He did tremendous work for years raising money for Shriner hospitals,
which directly improved the lives of burned or crippled children. He
probably *saved* lives, something we can't really say about very many
old movie stars.
True.

Sounds like it's time for someone to write a new biography of Harold
Lloyd.

Jim? Are you listening? :)

Tom Moran
Shush
2006-02-01 01:13:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Feuillade
Post by Shush
I asked her about the rumor and she confirmed it, adding that she's
even met one of Harold's unacknowledged daughters.
How many of them *are* there, anyway?
I don't know how many other Lloyd children there are. I think more
than one has come forward, but it's probably impossible to know just
how many are out there.

When I asked who these women were that Harold had been so friendly
with, I half-expected to hear that they were the nude models he used to
photograph. To my surprise, the reply was, "Shriner wives."

Several of Harold's glamour photo models have been identified and
interviewed, and they say he was strictly professional and above-board
with them.
Post by Feuillade
Sounds like it's time for someone to write a new biography of Harold
Lloyd.
Really, THE HAROLD LLOYD ENCYCLOPEDIA is probably the best book
we'll ever get. If it weren't so expensive, it'd be better-known. It's
a must-have for any serious Lloyd fan.



--Shush--
Richard Carnahan
2006-02-01 16:52:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shush
Post by Feuillade
Post by Shush
I asked her about the rumor and she confirmed it, adding that she's
even met one of Harold's unacknowledged daughters.
How many of them *are* there, anyway?
I don't know how many other Lloyd children there are. I think more
than one has come forward, but it's probably impossible to know just
how many are out there.
When I asked who these women were that Harold had been so friendly
with, I half-expected to hear that they were the nude models he used to
photograph. To my surprise, the reply was, "Shriner wives."
Several of Harold's glamour photo models have been identified and
interviewed, and they say he was strictly professional and above-board
with them.
Dardis speculated, as I recall, that Lloyd had diddled several of
these models. How Dardis could have known I have no idea--unless there
are a batch of 3-D photos we don't know about. (God, I hope not.)
Post by Shush
Post by Feuillade
Sounds like it's time for someone to write a new biography of Harold
Lloyd.
Really, THE HAROLD LLOYD ENCYCLOPEDIA is probably the best book
we'll ever get. If it weren't so expensive, it'd be better-known. It's
a must-have for any serious Lloyd fan.
--Shush--
James Neibaur
2006-02-01 01:18:34 UTC
Permalink
Feuillade 1/31/06 6:20 PM
Post by Feuillade
Sounds like it's time for someone to write a new biography of Harold
Lloyd.
Jim? Are you listening?
who me?? I don't write biographies!

JN
Feuillade
2006-02-01 02:24:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Neibaur
Feuillade 1/31/06 6:20 PM
Post by Feuillade
Sounds like it's time for someone to write a new biography of Harold
Lloyd.
Jim? Are you listening?
who me?? I don't write biographies!
Maybe it's time you started! :)

Tom Moran
James Neibaur
2006-02-01 03:31:55 UTC
Permalink
Feuillade 1/31/06 8:24 PM
Post by Feuillade
Post by James Neibaur
who me?? I don't write biographies!
Maybe it's time you started!
Dad once said that about power tools, and ever since then we've called him
stumpy.

JN
Feuillade
2006-02-01 04:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Neibaur
Feuillade 1/31/06 8:24 PM
Post by Feuillade
Post by James Neibaur
who me?? I don't write biographies!
Maybe it's time you started!
Dad once said that about power tools, and ever since then we've
called him stumpy.
I still think you could do it.

And do it well.

Tom Moran
Constance Kuriyama
2006-02-02 19:03:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Feuillade
Post by James Neibaur
Feuillade 1/31/06 6:20 PM
Post by Feuillade
Sounds like it's time for someone to write a new biography of Harold
Lloyd.
Jim? Are you listening?
who me?? I don't write biographies!
Maybe it's time you started! :)
Tom Moran
Well, I do write biographies, and I'll admit I'm intrigued. Lloyd
already sounds more interesting as a subject. Shriner wives!

They must have arranged to meet while the ladies' husbands were
out riding in parades on their mini cars, complete with cone-
shaped purple hats and tassels. If my husband did that, a lover
on the side might be a tempting option.

Connie K.
James Neibaur
2006-02-02 23:18:48 UTC
Permalink
Constance Kuriyama 2/2/06 1:03 PM
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Well, I do write biographies, and I'll admit I'm intrigued. Lloyd
already sounds more interesting as a subject. Shriner wives!
I will gladly help you with any project, but it is not something I do
myself.

JN
George Shelps
2006-02-01 02:12:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shush
I don't think it is in the Dardis book. It
*is* mentioned obliquely in one of the
Kenneth Anger books, which was the
only place I'd ever seen it mentioned in
print.
Now ~there's~ a reliable source!
Post by Shush
Post by Feuillade
Post by Shush
I'm not sure I'd want to pin a
good-parenting medal to Harold's
chest. He did a fine job raising
Suzanne, but he also fathered a
number of illegitimate kids that he
never acknowledged, kids who had to
grow up without the benefit of a
father's influence.
Okay, I'm clearly behind the curve here.
Is *this* in the Dardis book (you'd think
I'd remember if it was).
Has this been verified? Where exactly
did you get this information?
I was inclined to dismiss the rumor until I
had the pleasure of meeting the person
who likely knows more about Lloyd than
anyone on Earth. (I'd name her, but she's
had a hot & cold relationship with the
Lloyd estate and I don't want to make
that any worse, and if you've been
reading the newsgroups lately you know
who I mean anyway!)
I think I know who you mean. Perhaps
she might toddle over here and confirm
it? Or maybe publish the info, instead of
just gossiping about it?
Post by Shush
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0I asked her about the rumor and she
confirmed it,
How? By producing a birth certificate
with Harold listed as the father? By
copies of letters from "Daddy" Lloyd?








++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."
Shush
2006-02-01 17:17:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Shelps
Post by Shush
I don't think it is in the Dardis book. It
*is* mentioned obliquely in one of the
Kenneth Anger books, which was the
only place I'd ever seen it mentioned in
print.
Now ~there's~ a reliable source!
Well, this time he turned out to be right. Who'd a thunk it.
Post by George Shelps
Perhaps
she might toddle over here and confirm
it? Or maybe publish the info, instead of
just gossiping about it?
She wasn't "gossiping" about anything, she just told the truth about
an historical figure whose life she's spent a decade researching. And
my understanding is that neither the daughter nor the Estate
particularly wants a Berlin Wall floodlight of public attention on the
matter.
Post by George Shelps
Post by Shush
I asked her about the rumor and she
confirmed it,
How? By producing a birth certificate
with Harold listed as the father? By
copies of letters from "Daddy" Lloyd?
My conversation with her was a few years ago, but I recall her
saying she'd met the daughter, and I believe she saw some
correspondence between Harold and the mother, which the daughter
presented to her. Whatever the case was, it was enough to convince her,
and that's good enough for me. But if you'd prefer to dismiss it all as
wild and scurrilous fiction, you certainly may.


--Shush--
George Shelps
2006-02-01 19:52:58 UTC
Permalink
Perhaps she might toddle over here and
confirm it? Or maybe publish the info,
instead of just gossiping about it?
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0She wasn't "gossiping" about
anything,
It's gossip unless she documents
it.
she just told the truth about an historical
figure whose life she's spent a decade
researching.
Then it's incumbent upon her as an
historian not to be a rumor-monger.
And my understanding is that neither the
daughter nor the Estate particularly
wants a Berlin Wall floodlight of public
attention on the matter.
Now you're saying "the Estate" believes
it, too? Well, "the Estate" is Suzanne
Lloyd, so you're saying Suzanne
buys it?
Post by Shush
I asked her about the rumor and she
confirmed it,
How? By producing a birth certificate
with Harold listed as the father? By
copies of letters from "Daddy" Lloyd?
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0My conversation with her was a few
years ago, but I recall her saying she'd
met the daughter, and I believe she saw
some correspondence between Harold
and the mother, which the daughter
presented to her. Whatever the case
was, it was enough to convince her, and
that's good enough for me.
Why? This particular individual strikes
me as a bit obsessive about Lloyd.
But if you'd prefer to dismiss it all as
wild and scurrilous fiction, you certainly
may.
I don't dismiss it. I would like to
see some evidence first.

A few yeara ago, 3 German people came
forth claiming to be the offspring of
Charles Lindbergh via an affair he had
with a German woman in the 50s. They
verified their claims with many letters
from Lindbergh to their mother, and then
came a DNA test that clinched it.

I need to see something of that sort.







++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."
David Pearson
2006-02-02 09:05:16 UTC
Permalink
On 2/1/06 1:52 PM, in article
Post by George Shelps
Perhaps she might toddle over here and
confirm it? Or maybe publish the info,
instead of just gossiping about it?
      She wasn't "gossiping" about
anything,
It's gossip unless she documents
it.
she just told the truth about an historical
figure whose life she's spent a decade
researching.
Then it's incumbent upon her as an
historian not to be a rumor-monger.
And my understanding is that neither the
daughter nor the Estate particularly
wants a Berlin Wall floodlight of public
attention on the matter.
Now you're saying "the Estate" believes
it, too? Well, "the Estate" is Suzanne
Lloyd, so you're saying Suzanne
buys it?
Post by Shush
I asked her about the rumor and she
confirmed it,
How? By producing a birth certificate
with Harold listed as the father? By
copies of letters from "Daddy" Lloyd?
      My conversation with her was a few
years ago, but I recall her saying she'd
met the daughter, and I believe she saw
some correspondence between Harold
and the mother, which the daughter
presented to her. Whatever the case
was, it was enough to convince her, and
that's good enough for me.
Why? This particular individual strikes
me as a bit obsessive about Lloyd.
But if you'd prefer to dismiss it all as
wild and scurrilous fiction, you certainly
may.
I don't dismiss it. I would like to
see some evidence first.
A few yeara ago, 3 German people came
forth claiming to be the offspring of
Charles Lindbergh via an affair he had
with a German woman in the 50s. They
verified their claims with many letters
from Lindbergh to their mother, and then
came a DNA test that clinched it.
I need to see something of that sort.
George,

1) If the lady in question admits a fault in Harold Lloyd, then it should be
taken as a fact, until proven otherwise. Otherwise it would not have been
said. Of all the people on earth, I would give only that lady that kind of
clout on this particular topic -- much like on the topic of the film
"Napoleon," if a certain gentleman in London says something critical about
it, that in itself is a concession that the criticism is almost certainly
so. Likewise, there are two ladies, one the grand Keatonist, the other the
grand Chaplinista, whose word on their subjects are simply beyond question.


2) No one involved in the question likely has ANY desire to give you any
EVIDENCE whatsoever, as all this is of a personal matter, and as such
nobody's damned business. Unlike ANOTHER SILENT COMEDIAN -- you know, the
one who managed to repeatedly get his sex like dragged up for public
consumption in court cases for 25 years -- Harold Lloyd managed to be quite
discreet in such matters. You need to have the decency to accept this and
drop it, or NOT accept this and drop it.

DBP
George Shelps
2006-02-02 16:11:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pearson
If the lady in question admits a fault in
Harold Lloyd, then it should be taken as
a fact, until proven otherwise.
Surely, you jest.
Post by David Pearson
Otherwise it would not have been said.
Of all the people on earth, I would give
only that lady that kind of clout on this
particular topic --
She ought to publicly document her
claim, then. Not pass along tales.
Post by David Pearson
much like on the topic of the film
"Napoleon," if a certain gentleman in
London says something critical about it,
criticism is almost certainly so.
I would not put her on the level of
Brownlow.
Post by David Pearson
Likewise,
there are two ladies, one the grand Keatonist, the other the grand
Chaplinista,
Post by David Pearson
whose word on their subjects are simply
beyond question.
Who is the latter?
Post by David Pearson
2) No one involved in the question likely
has ANY desire to give you any
EVIDENCE whatsoever, as all this is ofa
personal matter, and as such nobody's
damned business.
Then Shush shouldn't have used it to
discredit my views on Lloyd.
Post by David Pearson
Unlike ANOTHER SILENT COMEDIAN
-- you know, the one who managed to
repeatedly get his sex like dragged up
for public consumption in court cases for
25 years -- Harold Lloyd managed to be
quite discreet in such matters. You need
to have the decency to accept this and
drop it, or NOT accept this and drop it.
Tell that to Shush.







++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."
Richard Carnahan
2006-02-02 17:07:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Shelps
Post by David Pearson
If the lady in question admits a fault in
Harold Lloyd, then it should be taken as
a fact, until proven otherwise.
Surely, you jest.
Post by David Pearson
Otherwise it would not have been said.
Of all the people on earth, I would give
only that lady that kind of clout on this
particular topic --
She ought to publicly document her
claim, then. Not pass along tales.
Post by David Pearson
much like on the topic of the film
"Napoleon," if a certain gentleman in
London says something critical about it,
criticism is almost certainly so.
I would not put her on the level of
Brownlow.
Post by David Pearson
Likewise,
there are two ladies, one the grand Keatonist, the other the grand
Chaplinista,
Post by David Pearson
whose word on their subjects are simply
beyond question.
Who is the latter?
Post by David Pearson
2) No one involved in the question likely
has ANY desire to give you any
EVIDENCE whatsoever, as all this is ofa
personal matter, and as such nobody's
damned business.
Then Shush shouldn't have used it to
discredit my views on Lloyd.
Why should Shush be held to a higher standard than you hold yourself
(if you know what I mean)?
Post by George Shelps
Post by David Pearson
Unlike ANOTHER SILENT COMEDIAN
-- you know, the one who managed to
repeatedly get his sex like dragged up
for public consumption in court cases for
25 years -- Harold Lloyd managed to be
quite discreet in such matters. You need
to have the decency to accept this and
drop it, or NOT accept this and drop it.
Tell that to Shush.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."
George Shelps
2006-02-02 20:50:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Shelps
Then Shush shouldn't have used it to
discredit my views on Lloyd.
.=A0=A0=A0=A0Why should Shush be held to a
higher standard than you hold yourself (if
you know what I mean)?
I never would havepassed along gossip
..especially not in order
to discredit another poster's point
of view.

I don't even get into Chaplin's
disordered love life.







++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."
Richard Carnahan
2006-02-03 00:00:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Shelps
Post by George Shelps
Then Shush shouldn't have used it to
discredit my views on Lloyd.
. Why should Shush be held to a
higher standard than you hold yourself (if
you know what I mean)?
I never would havepassed along gossip
..especially not in order
to discredit another poster's point
of view.
You frequently resort to idle speculation based solely on your
peg-legged politics.
George Shelps
2006-02-03 01:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Carnahan
You frequently resort to idle speculation
based solely on your peg-legged politics.
That's untrue.

But at least I have a leg to stand on..







++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."
Richard Carnahan
2006-02-03 04:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Shelps
Post by Richard Carnahan
You frequently resort to idle speculation
based solely on your peg-legged politics.
That's untrue.
But at least I have a leg to stand on..
Yes, and a mouth to put your foot in.
David Totheroh
2006-02-03 01:01:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Shelps
Post by George Shelps
Then Shush shouldn't have used it to
discredit my views on Lloyd.
. Why should Shush be held to a
higher standard than you hold yourself (if
you know what I mean)?
I never would havepassed along gossip
..especially not in order
to discredit another poster's point
of view.
Bwwaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
George Shelps
2006-02-03 01:53:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Totheroh
Post by George Shelps
I never would havepassed along gossip
..especially not in order
to discredit another poster's point
of view.
Bwwaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
ahahahahahaha
Someone have a strait jacket?

(And I don't post under fictitious
names, either.)







++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."
David Totheroh
2006-02-03 03:21:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Shelps
Post by David Totheroh
Post by George Shelps
I never would havepassed along gossip
..especially not in order
to discredit another poster's point
of view.
Bwwaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
ahahahahahaha
Someone have a strait jacket?
"I should'a made a coffee table" to quote Geppetto.
Shush
2006-02-02 17:15:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Shelps
Shush shouldn't have used it to
discredit my views on Lloyd.
I didn't discredit your view on Lloyd. I agreed with you that by all
accounts, he did a fine job of raising Suzanne. And I pointed out he
did a lot of great charitable work. But I'm also told, by a credible
authority, that he fathered children he didn't acknowledge. That's all
I'm saying here.



--Shush--
David Pearson
2006-02-02 19:58:23 UTC
Permalink
On 2/2/06 11:15 AM, in article
Post by Shush
Post by George Shelps
Shush shouldn't have used it to
discredit my views on Lloyd.
I didn't discredit your view on Lloyd. I agreed with you that by all
accounts, he did a fine job of raising Suzanne. And I pointed out he
did a lot of great charitable work. But I'm also told, by a credible
authority, that he fathered children he didn't acknowledge. That's all
I'm saying here.
--Shush--
Again, why does this matter?

DBP
Feuillade
2006-02-02 20:59:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pearson
Again, why does this matter?
Arguably, it doesn't.

But given that Chaplin's sex life (and his, to me, idiotic predeliction
for jailbait) is considered fair game, I don't see why Lloyd's sex life
should be off-topic.

Tom Moran
David Pearson
2006-02-02 23:00:25 UTC
Permalink
On 2/2/06 2:59 PM, in article
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Again, why does this matter?
Arguably, it doesn't.
But given that Chaplin's sex life (and his, to me, idiotic predeliction
for jailbait) is considered fair game, I don't see why Lloyd's sex life
should be off-topic.
Tom Moran
Chaplin's sex life (unfortunately) was very public, and as such affected his
film career. Lloyd's sex life was NOT public, and it seems whatever he did
didn't affect his films one iota,the same rules do not apply.

Unless you want to bring up his 1920s affair with Jobyna Ralston... That DID
affect things a bit!

DBP
Constance Kuriyama
2006-02-03 17:32:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pearson
On 2/2/06 2:59 PM, in article
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Again, why does this matter?
Arguably, it doesn't.
But given that Chaplin's sex life (and his, to me, idiotic predeliction
for jailbait) is considered fair game, I don't see why Lloyd's sex life
should be off-topic.
Tom Moran
Chaplin's sex life (unfortunately) was very public, and as such affected his
film career. Lloyd's sex life was NOT public, and it seems whatever he did
didn't affect his films one iota,the same rules do not apply.
Unless you want to bring up his 1920s affair with Jobyna Ralston... That DID
affect things a bit!
DBP
Let's not forget Bebe, who was all of 15 when she started working with
Lloyd. Need I say more?

Not all of Chaplin's sex life was public, by any means. His relationship
with Edna was handled discreetly enough, and most of his relationships
did not result in negative publiciy. The first two marriages and the
affair with Barry were the main sources of trouble. The first marriage could
be chalked up to inexperience; the second was completely irrational.
As for Barry, words fail me!

Connie K.
Feuillade
2006-02-03 17:42:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
On 2/2/06 2:59 PM, in article
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Again, why does this matter?
Arguably, it doesn't.
But given that Chaplin's sex life (and his, to me, idiotic predeliction
for jailbait) is considered fair game, I don't see why Lloyd's sex life
should be off-topic.
Tom Moran
Chaplin's sex life (unfortunately) was very public, and as such affected his
film career. Lloyd's sex life was NOT public, and it seems whatever he did
didn't affect his films one iota,the same rules do not apply.
Unless you want to bring up his 1920s affair with Jobyna Ralston... That DID
affect things a bit!
DBP
Let's not forget Bebe, who was all of 15 when she started working with
Lloyd. Need I say more?
Not all of Chaplin's sex life was public, by any means. His relationship
with Edna was handled discreetly enough, and most of his relationships
did not result in negative publiciy. The first two marriages and the
affair with Barry were the main sources of trouble. The first marriage could
be chalked up to inexperience; the second was completely irrational.
As for Barry, words fail me!
Actually, Joan Barry makes more sense than Lita Grey.

Doesn't it strike you as natural (albeit more than a little Freudian)
that a man whose mother went insane should be attracted to a sexually
desirable but emotionally disturbed woman?

Makes perfect sense to me.

It's the whole affair/marriage with Lita that makes me want to hit him
over the head with a two by four and yell: "What the fuck were you
thinking?"

Tom Moran
Constance Kuriyama
2006-02-03 18:55:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Feuillade
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
On 2/2/06 2:59 PM, in article
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Again, why does this matter?
Arguably, it doesn't.
But given that Chaplin's sex life (and his, to me, idiotic predeliction
for jailbait) is considered fair game, I don't see why Lloyd's sex life
should be off-topic.
Tom Moran
Chaplin's sex life (unfortunately) was very public, and as such affected his
film career. Lloyd's sex life was NOT public, and it seems whatever he did
didn't affect his films one iota,the same rules do not apply.
Unless you want to bring up his 1920s affair with Jobyna Ralston... That DID
affect things a bit!
DBP
Let's not forget Bebe, who was all of 15 when she started working with
Lloyd. Need I say more?
Not all of Chaplin's sex life was public, by any means. His relationship
with Edna was handled discreetly enough, and most of his relationships
did not result in negative publiciy. The first two marriages and the
affair with Barry were the main sources of trouble. The first marriage could
be chalked up to inexperience; the second was completely irrational.
As for Barry, words fail me!
Actually, Joan Barry makes more sense than Lita Grey.
Doesn't it strike you as natural (albeit more than a little Freudian)
that a man whose mother went insane should be attracted to a sexually
desirable but emotionally disturbed woman?
Makes perfect sense to me.
I can see an Oedipal angle in all of his attractions, but by the time someone
is in his fifties and has been badly burned twice, one would expect
experience to curb libido, especially when it became clear that the girl
was dangerously deranged.
Post by Feuillade
It's the whole affair/marriage with Lita that makes me want to hit him
over the head with a two by four and yell: "What the fuck were you
thinking?"
Tom Moran
I take your point, but I tend to see Lita as one of these compulisve/
repetitive/self-destructive things that he was subject to--you know,
the "That really hurt the first time, so I'll do it again just for fun"
sort of thing.

To a lesser degree the same pattern also holds for Barry, although
Barry was quite different from the other two in certain respects--older,
promisuous, and not particularly committed to him or to the film
project he was grooming her for. His attraction to her seems to border
on the delusional.

Two things that all his relationships with women have in common are
unconventionality and risk.

Connie K.
Shush
2006-02-03 19:13:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Constance Kuriyama
I take your point, but I tend to see Lita as one of these compulisve/
repetitive/self-destructive things that he was subject to--you know,
the "That really hurt the first time, so I'll do it again just for fun"
sort of thing.
To a lesser degree the same pattern also holds for Barry, although
Barry was quite different from the other two in certain respects--older,
promisuous, and not particularly committed to him or to the film
project he was grooming her for. His attraction to her seems to border
on the delusional.
I agree. But I think the worst thing about Lita was that she was too
young for him. Joan Barry was the same, but a mental case as well. I
don't know what Chaplin was thinking. When you have sex with a nutjob
who's just shown up at your house waving a gun, that's a pretty bad
judgment call.



--Shush--
FredT
2006-02-03 19:27:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shush
Post by Constance Kuriyama
I take your point, but I tend to see Lita as one of these compulisve/
repetitive/self-destructive things that he was subject to--you know,
the "That really hurt the first time, so I'll do it again just for fun"
sort of thing.
To a lesser degree the same pattern also holds for Barry, although
Barry was quite different from the other two in certain respects--older,
promisuous, and not particularly committed to him or to the film
project he was grooming her for. His attraction to her seems to border
on the delusional.
I agree. But I think the worst thing about Lita was that she was too
young for him. Joan Barry was the same, but a mental case as well. I
don't know what Chaplin was thinking. When you have sex with a nutjob
who's just shown up at your house waving a gun, that's a pretty bad
judgment call.
I think he was just showing off for Harold Lloyd.
Constance Kuriyama
2006-02-03 23:55:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shush
Post by Constance Kuriyama
I take your point, but I tend to see Lita as one of these compulisve/
repetitive/self-destructive things that he was subject to--you know,
the "That really hurt the first time, so I'll do it again just for fun"
sort of thing.
To a lesser degree the same pattern also holds for Barry, although
Barry was quite different from the other two in certain respects--older,
promisuous, and not particularly committed to him or to the film
project he was grooming her for. His attraction to her seems to border
on the delusional.
I agree. But I think the worst thing about Lita was that she was too
young for him. Joan Barry was the same, but a mental case as well. I
don't know what Chaplin was thinking. When you have sex with a nutjob
who's just shown up at your house waving a gun, that's a pretty bad
judgment call.
--Shush--
If Barry was too young for him, then so was Oona, who was youger than
Barry, but that one worked reasonably well. It has less to do with age
than the nature of the people involved. Oona was young but relatively
sophisticated, and perfectly sane.

Connie K.
Feuillade
2006-02-04 01:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by Shush
Post by Constance Kuriyama
I take your point, but I tend to see Lita as one of these compulisve/
repetitive/self-destructive things that he was subject to--you know,
the "That really hurt the first time, so I'll do it again just for fun"
sort of thing.
To a lesser degree the same pattern also holds for Barry, although
Barry was quite different from the other two in certain respects--older,
promisuous, and not particularly committed to him or to the film
project he was grooming her for. His attraction to her seems to border
on the delusional.
I agree. But I think the worst thing about Lita was that she was too
young for him. Joan Barry was the same, but a mental case as well. I
don't know what Chaplin was thinking. When you have sex with a nutjob
who's just shown up at your house waving a gun, that's a pretty bad
judgment call.
--Shush--
If Barry was too young for him, then so was Oona, who was youger than
Barry, but that one worked reasonably well. It has less to do with age
than the nature of the people involved. Oona was young but relatively
sophisticated, and perfectly sane.
I don't know about "perfectly" sane.

She was an O'Neill, after all. With all the psychic baggage that
entails.

Tom Moran
Constance Kuriyama
2006-02-04 04:28:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Feuillade
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by Shush
Post by Constance Kuriyama
I take your point, but I tend to see Lita as one of these compulisve/
repetitive/self-destructive things that he was subject to--you know,
the "That really hurt the first time, so I'll do it again just for fun"
sort of thing.
To a lesser degree the same pattern also holds for Barry, although
Barry was quite different from the other two in certain respects--older,
promisuous, and not particularly committed to him or to the film
project he was grooming her for. His attraction to her seems to border
on the delusional.
I agree. But I think the worst thing about Lita was that she was too
young for him. Joan Barry was the same, but a mental case as well. I
don't know what Chaplin was thinking. When you have sex with a nutjob
who's just shown up at your house waving a gun, that's a pretty bad
judgment call.
--Shush--
If Barry was too young for him, then so was Oona, who was youger than
Barry, but that one worked reasonably well. It has less to do with age
than the nature of the people involved. Oona was young but relatively
sophisticated, and perfectly sane.
I don't know about "perfectly" sane.
She was an O'Neill, after all. With all the psychic baggage that
entails.
Tom Moran
Mildly neurotic at most. Her brother seemed to get the worst of it.

Connie K.
Feuillade
2006-02-04 05:37:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by Feuillade
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by Shush
Post by Constance Kuriyama
I take your point, but I tend to see Lita as one of these compulisve/
repetitive/self-destructive things that he was subject to--you know,
the "That really hurt the first time, so I'll do it again just for fun"
sort of thing.
To a lesser degree the same pattern also holds for Barry, although
Barry was quite different from the other two in certain respects--older,
promisuous, and not particularly committed to him or to the film
project he was grooming her for. His attraction to her seems to border
on the delusional.
I agree. But I think the worst thing about Lita was that she was too
young for him. Joan Barry was the same, but a mental case as well. I
don't know what Chaplin was thinking. When you have sex with a nutjob
who's just shown up at your house waving a gun, that's a pretty bad
judgment call.
--Shush--
If Barry was too young for him, then so was Oona, who was youger than
Barry, but that one worked reasonably well. It has less to do with age
than the nature of the people involved. Oona was young but relatively
sophisticated, and perfectly sane.
I don't know about "perfectly" sane.
She was an O'Neill, after all. With all the psychic baggage that
entails.
Tom Moran
Mildly neurotic at most. Her brother seemed to get the worst of it.
That her brother (and her half-brother, her father's namesake) got a
more advanced form of it is true.

But Oona did *not* escape unscathed, and I get the feeling that two
things are true:

1) The idyllic portrait Chaplin paints of his marriage at the end of
"My Autobiography" was in some sense fiction.

and:

2) There's a lot about Oona's later life that we don't know.

Tom Moran
Constance Kuriyama
2006-02-05 17:52:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Feuillade
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by Feuillade
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by Shush
Post by Constance Kuriyama
I take your point, but I tend to see Lita as one of these compulisve/
repetitive/self-destructive things that he was subject to--you know,
the "That really hurt the first time, so I'll do it again just for fun"
sort of thing.
To a lesser degree the same pattern also holds for Barry, although
Barry was quite different from the other two in certain respects--older,
promisuous, and not particularly committed to him or to the film
project he was grooming her for. His attraction to her seems to border
on the delusional.
I agree. But I think the worst thing about Lita was that she was too
young for him. Joan Barry was the same, but a mental case as well. I
don't know what Chaplin was thinking. When you have sex with a nutjob
who's just shown up at your house waving a gun, that's a pretty bad
judgment call.
--Shush--
If Barry was too young for him, then so was Oona, who was youger than
Barry, but that one worked reasonably well. It has less to do with age
than the nature of the people involved. Oona was young but relatively
sophisticated, and perfectly sane.
I don't know about "perfectly" sane.
She was an O'Neill, after all. With all the psychic baggage that
entails.
Tom Moran
Mildly neurotic at most. Her brother seemed to get the worst of it.
That her brother (and her half-brother, her father's namesake) got a
more advanced form of it is true.
But Oona did *not* escape unscathed, and I get the feeling that two
1) The idyllic portrait Chaplin paints of his marriage at the end of
"My Autobiography" was in some sense fiction.
2) There's a lot about Oona's later life that we don't know.
Tom Moran
Scovill's book makes it clear that her last years weren't entirely
joyful. Women who marry older men they really care for always have the
problem of what to do with themselves after their husband dies, and
after their children grow up. Oona wanted lots of kids, but I'm not
sure she anticipated the difficulty of dealing with that many teenagers,
especially when contrariness ran in the family.

Those problems, added to whatever personal baggage she acquired as an
O'Neil, would have hard for anyone to manage.

Connie K.
George Shelps
2006-02-04 02:21:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Let's not forget Bebe, who was all of 15
when she started working with Lloyd.
Need I say more?
You can't...because you don't know what
you're talking about.

First, Lloyd was in his early 20s. Second, Bebe lied about her age.
Third, he was
sincerely in love with her, unlike CC
and Mildred/Lita.







++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."
Richard Carnahan
2006-02-04 04:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Shelps
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Let's not forget Bebe, who was all of 15
when she started working with Lloyd.
Need I say more?
You can't...because you don't know what
you're talking about.
First, Lloyd was in his early 20s. Second, Bebe lied about her age.
Third, he was
sincerely in love with her, unlike CC
and Mildred/Lita.
Bebe was actually 14 when she started working for Lloyd, and as to
who loved whom the most: there's no way of ever knowing.
Constance Kuriyama
2006-02-04 04:46:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Carnahan
Post by George Shelps
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Let's not forget Bebe, who was all of 15
when she started working with Lloyd.
Need I say more?
You can't...because you don't know what
you're talking about.
First, Lloyd was in his early 20s. Second, Bebe lied about her age.
Third, he was
sincerely in love with her, unlike CC
and Mildred/Lita.
Bebe was actually 14 when she started working for Lloyd, and as to
who loved whom the most: there's no way of ever knowing.
Gee, I overestimated! She looks every bit of fifteen in the stills I have,
which is how old the book I have says she was. How do we know whe was
fourteen?

And if Lloyd was sincerely in love with her, why didn't he marry her? Well,
maybe she dumped him, but I don't have a love-o-meter to tell me how she
felt.

Connie K.
Richard Carnahan
2006-02-04 05:25:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by Richard Carnahan
Post by George Shelps
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Let's not forget Bebe, who was all of 15
when she started working with Lloyd.
Need I say more?
You can't...because you don't know what
you're talking about.
First, Lloyd was in his early 20s. Second, Bebe lied about her age.
Third, he was
sincerely in love with her, unlike CC
and Mildred/Lita.
Bebe was actually 14 when she started working for Lloyd, and as to
who loved whom the most: there's no way of ever knowing.
Gee, I overestimated! She looks every bit of fifteen in the stills I have,
which is how old the book I have says she was. How do we know whe was
fourteen?
I'm relying on the Internet Movie Database and Ephraim Katz's THE
FILM ENCYCLOPEDIA (2001 edition). She was born in 1901 and started
working with Harold Lloyd in 1915.
David Pearson
2006-02-04 04:34:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Let's not forget Bebe, who was all of 15 when she started working with
Lloyd. Need I say more?
Well, Harold was 21 at the time, so there wasn't that much of an age gap to
raise eyebrows. And Bebe was a long, long, LONG way from child star Mildred
Harris. Mildred was 15 and looked 12. Bebe was 15, and looked 18. Miss
Daniels had spent so much time in 1914 flirting with Keystone comics to land
roles, Mack Sennett finally drew the line and tossed the jailbait off the
lot, which is how she ended up at Roach. Bebe Daniels, even at 15, was ONE
HOT TAMALE!
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Not all of Chaplin's sex life was public, by any means. His relationship
with Edna was handled discreetly enough, and most of his relationships
did not result in negative publiciy. The first two marriages and the
affair with Barry were the main sources of trouble. The first marriage could
be chalked up to inexperience; the second was completely irrational.
As for Barry, words fail me!
Connie K.
The first was understandable, if a bit eye-raising. The main fallout seems
to have been his dumping Mildred on Mary Pickford, while Charlie ran around
with Doug. Having to endure endless hours of witless conversation with a
girl having half her IQ could not have pleased Chaplin's principal business
partner, who would have to wait six years for a UA gold rush.

DBP
Constance Kuriyama
2006-02-04 05:31:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Let's not forget Bebe, who was all of 15 when she started working with
Lloyd. Need I say more?
Well, Harold was 21 at the time, so there wasn't that much of an age gap to
raise eyebrows.
About the same age diffeence as that between Chaplin and Edna. But Edna was
eighteen, and on the rebound. No statutory rape there. Whereas Bebe at
fifteen was jail bait.
Post by David Pearson
And Bebe was a long, long, LONG way from child star Mildred
Harris. Mildred was 15 and looked 12. Bebe was 15, and looked 18. Miss
Daniels had spent so much time in 1914 flirting with Keystone comics to land
roles, Mack Sennett finally drew the line and tossed the jailbait off the
lot, which is how she ended up at Roach. Bebe Daniels, even at 15, was ONE
HOT TAMALE!
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Not all of Chaplin's sex life was public, by any means. His relationship
with Edna was handled discreetly enough, and most of his relationships
did not result in negative publiciy. The first two marriages and the
affair with Barry were the main sources of trouble. The first marriage could
be chalked up to inexperience; the second was completely irrational.
As for Barry, words fail me!
Connie K.
The first was understandable, if a bit eye-raising. The main fallout seems
to have been his dumping Mildred on Mary Pickford, while Charlie ran around
with Doug. Having to endure endless hours of witless conversation with a
girl having half her IQ could not have pleased Chaplin's principal business
partner, who would have to wait six years for a UA gold rush.
DBP
Mildred may not have been bright, but she didn't look twelve when Chaplin
married her, and if we can believe his story she was in fairly hot pursuit--
as was Lita, according to Jim Tully. I definitely believe Tully.

Mildred was *working* during most of her marriage to Chaplin. Go to the
IMDB and you'll be amazed at how many films she made (not in child roles)
during the time they were married, which I'm sure Chaplin didn't like.

Chaplin's problem was that he couldn't resist a risky opportunity.

Connie K.
David Pearson
2006-02-04 08:50:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Let's not forget Bebe, who was all of 15 when she started working with
Lloyd. Need I say more?
Well, Harold was 21 at the time, so there wasn't that much of an age gap to
raise eyebrows.
About the same age diffeence as that between Chaplin and Edna. But Edna was
eighteen, and on the rebound. No statutory rape there. Whereas Bebe at
fifteen was jail bait.
Nobody seemed to complain. Most expected marriage. That they didn't was more
her ambition than his. She dumped him for better pickings with DeMille, and
then for her own series of feature comedies at Paramount.
But jailbait she was in 1915.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
And Bebe was a long, long, LONG way from child star Mildred
Harris. Mildred was 15 and looked 12. Bebe was 15, and looked 18. Miss
Daniels had spent so much time in 1914 flirting with Keystone comics to land
roles, Mack Sennett finally drew the line and tossed the jailbait off the
lot, which is how she ended up at Roach. Bebe Daniels, even at 15, was ONE
HOT TAMALE!
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Not all of Chaplin's sex life was public, by any means. His relationship
with Edna was handled discreetly enough, and most of his relationships
did not result in negative publiciy. The first two marriages and the
affair with Barry were the main sources of trouble. The first marriage could
be chalked up to inexperience; the second was completely irrational.
As for Barry, words fail me!
Connie K.
The first was understandable, if a bit eye-raising. The main fallout seems
to have been his dumping Mildred on Mary Pickford, while Charlie ran around
with Doug. Having to endure endless hours of witless conversation with a
girl having half her IQ could not have pleased Chaplin's principal business
partner, who would have to wait six years for a UA gold rush.
DBP
Mildred may not have been bright, but she didn't look twelve when Chaplin
married her, and if we can believe his story she was in fairly hot pursuit--
"Dorothy?"
Post by Constance Kuriyama
as was Lita, according to Jim Tully. I definitely believe Tully.
Lita does remind one a lot of Bebe... Without the acting talent. The problem
was Lita was years younger than Bebe, and Charlie years older than Harold.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Mildred was *working* during most of her marriage to Chaplin. Go to the
IMDB and you'll be amazed at how many films she made (not in child roles)
during the time they were married, which I'm sure Chaplin didn't like.
There's no doubt she played the "Mrs. Charlie Chaplin" card.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Chaplin's problem was that he couldn't resist a risky opportunity.
Connie K.
That was the difference.

DBP
David Totheroh
2006-02-04 11:42:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Let's not forget Bebe, who was all of 15 when she started working with
Lloyd. Need I say more?
Well, Harold was 21 at the time, so there wasn't that much of an age gap to
raise eyebrows.
About the same age diffeence as that between Chaplin and Edna. But Edna was
eighteen, and on the rebound. No statutory rape there. Whereas Bebe at
fifteen was jail bait.
Nobody seemed to complain. Most expected marriage. That they didn't was more
her ambition than his. She dumped him for better pickings with DeMille, and
then for her own series of feature comedies at Paramount.
But jailbait she was in 1915.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
And Bebe was a long, long, LONG way from child star Mildred
Harris. Mildred was 15 and looked 12. Bebe was 15, and looked 18. Miss
Daniels had spent so much time in 1914 flirting with Keystone comics to land
roles, Mack Sennett finally drew the line and tossed the jailbait off the
lot, which is how she ended up at Roach. Bebe Daniels, even at 15, was ONE
HOT TAMALE!
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Not all of Chaplin's sex life was public, by any means. His relationship
with Edna was handled discreetly enough, and most of his relationships
did not result in negative publiciy. The first two marriages and the
affair with Barry were the main sources of trouble. The first marriage could
be chalked up to inexperience; the second was completely irrational.
As for Barry, words fail me!
Connie K.
The first was understandable, if a bit eye-raising. The main fallout seems
to have been his dumping Mildred on Mary Pickford, while Charlie ran around
with Doug. Having to endure endless hours of witless conversation with a
girl having half her IQ could not have pleased Chaplin's principal business
partner, who would have to wait six years for a UA gold rush.
DBP
Mildred may not have been bright, but she didn't look twelve when Chaplin
married her, and if we can believe his story she was in fairly hot pursuit--
"Dorothy?"
IMDB says Mildred was born Nov. 29, 1901. It's not too surprising that
she might have looked 12 when she played Dorothy. It was in 1914 when
she *was* 12 for most of that year. But when Chaplin married her 5
years later, she had already been in films like The Price of a Good
Time, For Husbands Only, The Fall of Babalon (where she played the
"Favorite of he Harem"), and Forbidden aka The Forbidden Box (which in
itself should have been sufficient warning to Charlie but was
undoubtedly a big part of the attraction).
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
as was Lita, according to Jim Tully. I definitely believe Tully.
All the stories I've heard indicate that Lita's mother was right behind
her, fanning the flames of that pursuit as hard as she could.
Post by David Pearson
Lita does remind one a lot of Bebe... Without the acting talent. The problem
was Lita was years younger than Bebe, and Charlie years older than Harold.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Mildred was *working* during most of her marriage to Chaplin. Go to the
IMDB and you'll be amazed at how many films she made (not in child roles)
during the time they were married, which I'm sure Chaplin didn't like.
There's no doubt she played the "Mrs. Charlie Chaplin" card.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Chaplin's problem was that he couldn't resist a risky opportunity.
Connie K.
That was the difference.
DBP
David Pearson
2006-02-04 16:57:15 UTC
Permalink
On 2/4/06 5:42 AM, in article
Post by David Totheroh
Post by David Pearson
"Dorothy?"
IMDB says Mildred was born Nov. 29, 1901. It's not too surprising that
she might have looked 12 when she played Dorothy. It was in 1914 when
she *was* 12 for most of that year. But when Chaplin married her 5
years later, she had already been in films like The Price of a Good
Time, For Husbands Only, The Fall of Babalon (where she played the
"Favorite of he Harem"), and Forbidden aka The Forbidden Box (which in
itself should have been sufficient warning to Charlie but was
undoubtedly a big part of the attraction).
You may have missed my point.
There's a major stigma about marrying a recent child star, and is a very
different matter than marrying an average teen (which is bad enough).

It would be exactly like his chasing/marrying a 15/16-year-old Ashley Olsen.
Not only would she be jailbait -- the WHOLE WORLD would know it, and think
instantly about her child star past.

"Little Lady and the Tramp."

Not good PR....

DBP
David Totheroh
2006-02-04 17:45:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pearson
On 2/4/06 5:42 AM, in article
Post by David Totheroh
Post by David Pearson
"Dorothy?"
IMDB says Mildred was born Nov. 29, 1901. It's not too surprising that
she might have looked 12 when she played Dorothy. It was in 1914 when
she *was* 12 for most of that year. But when Chaplin married her 5
years later, she had already been in films like The Price of a Good
Time, For Husbands Only, The Fall of Babalon (where she played the
"Favorite of he Harem"), and Forbidden aka The Forbidden Box (which in
itself should have been sufficient warning to Charlie but was
undoubtedly a big part of the attraction).
You may have missed my point.
There's a major stigma about marrying a recent child star, and is a very
different matter than marrying an average teen (which is bad enough).
It would be exactly like his chasing/marrying a 15/16-year-old Ashley Olsen.
Not only would she be jailbait -- the WHOLE WORLD would know it, and think
instantly about her child star past.
"Little Lady and the Tramp."
Not good PR....
I understand, but I think you may have missed MY point. Her Dorothy was
5 years prior. The image being cultivated at the time of the Chaplin
relationship, at least if the movie titles are indicative (The
Forbidden Box, indeed), was more analogous to a 1910s-20s equivalent of
maybe Drew Barrymore or Brittney Spears and her pre-marriage sexy slut
persona. Still not a great PR move for Chaplin I'll readily admit, but
hardly "Auntie Em's darling niece and the Tramp."
David Pearson
2006-02-04 20:11:10 UTC
Permalink
On 2/4/06 11:45 AM, in article
Post by David Totheroh
I understand, but I think you may have missed MY point. Her Dorothy was
5 years prior. The image being cultivated at the time of the Chaplin
relationship, at least if the movie titles are indicative (The
Forbidden Box, indeed), was more analogous to a 1910s-20s equivalent of
maybe Drew Barrymore or Brittney Spears and her pre-marriage sexy slut
persona. Still not a great PR move for Chaplin I'll readily admit, but
hardly "Auntie Em's darling niece and the Tramp."
Maybe so... But then, the Olsens have been looking a bit slutty of late...

:-)

DBP
Constance Kuriyama
2006-02-04 18:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pearson
On 2/4/06 5:42 AM, in article
Post by David Totheroh
Post by David Pearson
"Dorothy?"
IMDB says Mildred was born Nov. 29, 1901. It's not too surprising that
she might have looked 12 when she played Dorothy. It was in 1914 when
she *was* 12 for most of that year. But when Chaplin married her 5
years later, she had already been in films like The Price of a Good
Time, For Husbands Only, The Fall of Babalon (where she played the
"Favorite of he Harem"), and Forbidden aka The Forbidden Box (which in
itself should have been sufficient warning to Charlie but was
undoubtedly a big part of the attraction).
You may have missed my point.
There's a major stigma about marrying a recent child star, and is a very
different matter than marrying an average teen (which is bad enough).
It would be exactly like his chasing/marrying a 15/16-year-old Ashley Olsen.
Not only would she be jailbait -- the WHOLE WORLD would know it, and think
instantly about her child star past.
"Little Lady and the Tramp."
Not good PR....
DBP
Then why wasn't Fairbanks in trouble for marrying Pickford, since the
public knew her in "little girl" rolse? Mildred, on the other hand, had
alredy progressed to playing adult roles.

I don't buy it.

Actually there wasn't much fuss about the age difference in Mildred's
case. The trouble started with Lita, particularly during the very
nasty divorce. Then it became a hot issue.

Connie K.
David Pearson
2006-02-04 20:40:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Then why wasn't Fairbanks in trouble for marrying Pickford, since the
public knew her in "little girl" rolse? Mildred, on the other hand, had
alredy progressed to playing adult roles.
I don't buy it.
Buy it.
EVERYBODY knew Mary Pickford was an adult playing a little girl. She already
played adults in a SCORE of feature films by 1920. Remember she was even
MORE popular than Charlie then, and she was even more closely watched. Her
and Doug's biggest fear was the negative feedback about her divorce from
Owen Moore on her "good girl" persona rather than her youth.

Mildred Harris was just the opposite: a little girl trying to break
type-casting.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Actually there wasn't much fuss about the age difference in Mildred's
case. The trouble started with Lita, particularly during the very
nasty divorce. Then it became a hot issue.
I think Mildred did raise a few eyebrows. But Lita revealed a pattern.

DBP
Constance Kuriyama
2006-02-04 18:02:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Totheroh
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Let's not forget Bebe, who was all of 15 when she started working with
Lloyd. Need I say more?
Well, Harold was 21 at the time, so there wasn't that much of an age gap to
raise eyebrows.
About the same age diffeence as that between Chaplin and Edna. But Edna was
eighteen, and on the rebound. No statutory rape there. Whereas Bebe at
fifteen was jail bait.
Nobody seemed to complain. Most expected marriage. That they didn't was more
her ambition than his. She dumped him for better pickings with DeMille, and
then for her own series of feature comedies at Paramount.
But jailbait she was in 1915.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
And Bebe was a long, long, LONG way from child star Mildred
Harris. Mildred was 15 and looked 12. Bebe was 15, and looked 18. Miss
Daniels had spent so much time in 1914 flirting with Keystone comics to land
roles, Mack Sennett finally drew the line and tossed the jailbait off the
lot, which is how she ended up at Roach. Bebe Daniels, even at 15, was ONE
HOT TAMALE!
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Not all of Chaplin's sex life was public, by any means. His relationship
with Edna was handled discreetly enough, and most of his relationships
did not result in negative publiciy. The first two marriages and the
affair with Barry were the main sources of trouble. The first marriage could
be chalked up to inexperience; the second was completely irrational.
As for Barry, words fail me!
Connie K.
The first was understandable, if a bit eye-raising. The main fallout seems
to have been his dumping Mildred on Mary Pickford, while Charlie ran around
with Doug. Having to endure endless hours of witless conversation with a
girl having half her IQ could not have pleased Chaplin's principal business
partner, who would have to wait six years for a UA gold rush.
DBP
Mildred may not have been bright, but she didn't look twelve when Chaplin
married her, and if we can believe his story she was in fairly hot pursuit--
"Dorothy?"
IMDB says Mildred was born Nov. 29, 1901. It's not too surprising that
she might have looked 12 when she played Dorothy. It was in 1914 when
she *was* 12 for most of that year. But when Chaplin married her 5
years later, she had already been in films like The Price of a Good
Time, For Husbands Only, The Fall of Babalon (where she played the
"Favorite of he Harem"), and Forbidden aka The Forbidden Box (which in
itself should have been sufficient warning to Charlie but was
undoubtedly a big part of the attraction).
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
as was Lita, according to Jim Tully. I definitely believe Tully.
All the stories I've heard indicate that Lita's mother was right behind
her, fanning the flames of that pursuit as hard as she could.
No doubt about her mother's encouragement. Tully tells a story about
having a dinner engagement with Charlie which he wanted to get out of. Along
came Lita (by herself) looking for Charlie, and Tully told her where she
could find him, hoping her arrival would cover his absence, which it
apparently did.

If Lita's mother wanted to protect her, she wouldn't have allowed her
to go fishing by herself. As for Tully, he seems blissfully unaware that
his willingness to use Lita as a diversion makes him a sort of pimp.

Connie K.
Post by David Totheroh
Post by David Pearson
Lita does remind one a lot of Bebe... Without the acting talent. The problem
was Lita was years younger than Bebe, and Charlie years older than Harold.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Mildred was *working* during most of her marriage to Chaplin. Go to the
IMDB and you'll be amazed at how many films she made (not in child roles)
during the time they were married, which I'm sure Chaplin didn't like.
There's no doubt she played the "Mrs. Charlie Chaplin" card.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Chaplin's problem was that he couldn't resist a risky opportunity.
Connie K.
That was the difference.
DBP
Constance Kuriyama
2006-02-04 17:50:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Let's not forget Bebe, who was all of 15 when she started working with
Lloyd. Need I say more?
Well, Harold was 21 at the time, so there wasn't that much of an age gap to
raise eyebrows.
About the same age diffeence as that between Chaplin and Edna. But Edna was
eighteen, and on the rebound. No statutory rape there. Whereas Bebe at
fifteen was jail bait.
Nobody seemed to complain. Most expected marriage. That they didn't was more
her ambition than his. She dumped him for better pickings with DeMille, and
then for her own series of feature comedies at Paramount.
But jailbait she was in 1915.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
And Bebe was a long, long, LONG way from child star Mildred
Harris. Mildred was 15 and looked 12. Bebe was 15, and looked 18. Miss
Daniels had spent so much time in 1914 flirting with Keystone comics to land
roles, Mack Sennett finally drew the line and tossed the jailbait off the
lot, which is how she ended up at Roach. Bebe Daniels, even at 15, was ONE
HOT TAMALE!
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Not all of Chaplin's sex life was public, by any means. His relationship
with Edna was handled discreetly enough, and most of his relationships
did not result in negative publiciy. The first two marriages and the
affair with Barry were the main sources of trouble. The first marriage could
be chalked up to inexperience; the second was completely irrational.
As for Barry, words fail me!
Connie K.
The first was understandable, if a bit eye-raising. The main fallout seems
to have been his dumping Mildred on Mary Pickford, while Charlie ran around
with Doug. Having to endure endless hours of witless conversation with a
girl having half her IQ could not have pleased Chaplin's principal business
partner, who would have to wait six years for a UA gold rush.
DBP
Mildred may not have been bright, but she didn't look twelve when Chaplin
married her, and if we can believe his story she was in fairly hot pursuit--
"Dorothy?"
Post by Constance Kuriyama
as was Lita, according to Jim Tully. I definitely believe Tully.
Lita does remind one a lot of Bebe... Without the acting talent. The problem
was Lita was years younger than Bebe, and Charlie years older than Harold.
Beg your pardon? Lita was pushing sixteen when Charlie hired her for GR.
And yes, he was older than Harold, but both were adults bedding underage
girls. Same difference, legally, whether you're 21 or 35.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Mildred was *working* during most of her marriage to Chaplin. Go to the
IMDB and you'll be amazed at how many films she made (not in child roles)
during the time they were married, which I'm sure Chaplin didn't like.
There's no doubt she played the "Mrs. Charlie Chaplin" card.
As did Lita.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Chaplin's problem was that he couldn't resist a risky opportunity.
Connie K.
That was the difference.
DBP
The real difference may have been that either Harold or Bebe was prudent
enough to avoid a pregnancy.

Given his later track record, I'm betting on Bebe. She seems in general
to have been far more clever and resourceful than Mildred or Lita.

Connie K.
David Pearson
2006-02-04 20:25:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Let's not forget Bebe, who was all of 15 when she started working with
Lloyd. Need I say more?
Well, Harold was 21 at the time, so there wasn't that much of an age gap to
raise eyebrows.
About the same age diffeence as that between Chaplin and Edna. But Edna was
eighteen, and on the rebound. No statutory rape there. Whereas Bebe at
fifteen was jail bait.
Nobody seemed to complain. Most expected marriage. That they didn't was more
her ambition than his. She dumped him for better pickings with DeMille, and
then for her own series of feature comedies at Paramount.
But jailbait she was in 1915.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
And Bebe was a long, long, LONG way from child star Mildred
Harris. Mildred was 15 and looked 12. Bebe was 15, and looked 18. Miss
Daniels had spent so much time in 1914 flirting with Keystone comics to land
roles, Mack Sennett finally drew the line and tossed the jailbait off the
lot, which is how she ended up at Roach. Bebe Daniels, even at 15, was ONE
HOT TAMALE!
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Not all of Chaplin's sex life was public, by any means. His relationship
with Edna was handled discreetly enough, and most of his relationships
did not result in negative publiciy. The first two marriages and the
affair with Barry were the main sources of trouble. The first marriage could
be chalked up to inexperience; the second was completely irrational.
As for Barry, words fail me!
Connie K.
The first was understandable, if a bit eye-raising. The main fallout seems
to have been his dumping Mildred on Mary Pickford, while Charlie ran around
with Doug. Having to endure endless hours of witless conversation with a
girl having half her IQ could not have pleased Chaplin's principal business
partner, who would have to wait six years for a UA gold rush.
DBP
Mildred may not have been bright, but she didn't look twelve when Chaplin
married her, and if we can believe his story she was in fairly hot pursuit--
"Dorothy?"
Post by Constance Kuriyama
as was Lita, according to Jim Tully. I definitely believe Tully.
Lita does remind one a lot of Bebe... Without the acting talent. The problem
was Lita was years younger than Bebe, and Charlie years older than Harold.
Beg your pardon? Lita was pushing sixteen when Charlie hired her for GR.
And yes, he was older than Harold, but both were adults bedding underage
girls. Same difference, legally, whether you're 21 or 35.
Gimme a break. Charlie is casting her as a tarty nymph on "The Kid" for
goodness sake -- when she's what? Eleven? And then casting her AND her
mother in completely useless roles in "Idle Class?" Please open your eyes.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Mildred was *working* during most of her marriage to Chaplin. Go to the
IMDB and you'll be amazed at how many films she made (not in child roles)
during the time they were married, which I'm sure Chaplin didn't like.
There's no doubt she played the "Mrs. Charlie Chaplin" card.
As did Lita.
Lita was a lot worse.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Chaplin's problem was that he couldn't resist a risky opportunity.
Connie K.
That was the difference.
DBP
The real difference may have been that either Harold or Bebe was prudent
enough to avoid a pregnancy.
Likely.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Given his later track record, I'm betting on Bebe. She seems in general
to have been far more clever and resourceful than Mildred or Lita.
Light years ahead. Bebe advanced from a comic's leading lady to supporting
actress to a major film star at Paramount. That most of those films do not
survive should not allow her to be underrated. She was huge by 1925 -- far
closer to Pickford or Swanson than to Mildred or Lita. And it appears to
have been very well planned by her too.

DBP
Constance Kuriyama
2006-02-05 17:30:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Let's not forget Bebe, who was all of 15 when she started working with
Lloyd. Need I say more?
Well, Harold was 21 at the time, so there wasn't that much of an age gap to
raise eyebrows.
About the same age diffeence as that between Chaplin and Edna. But Edna was
eighteen, and on the rebound. No statutory rape there. Whereas Bebe at
fifteen was jail bait.
Nobody seemed to complain. Most expected marriage. That they didn't was more
her ambition than his. She dumped him for better pickings with DeMille, and
then for her own series of feature comedies at Paramount.
But jailbait she was in 1915.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
And Bebe was a long, long, LONG way from child star Mildred
Harris. Mildred was 15 and looked 12. Bebe was 15, and looked 18. Miss
Daniels had spent so much time in 1914 flirting with Keystone comics to land
roles, Mack Sennett finally drew the line and tossed the jailbait off the
lot, which is how she ended up at Roach. Bebe Daniels, even at 15, was ONE
HOT TAMALE!
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Not all of Chaplin's sex life was public, by any means. His relationship
with Edna was handled discreetly enough, and most of his relationships
did not result in negative publiciy. The first two marriages and the
affair with Barry were the main sources of trouble. The first marriage could
be chalked up to inexperience; the second was completely irrational.
As for Barry, words fail me!
Connie K.
The first was understandable, if a bit eye-raising. The main fallout seems
to have been his dumping Mildred on Mary Pickford, while Charlie ran around
with Doug. Having to endure endless hours of witless conversation with a
girl having half her IQ could not have pleased Chaplin's principal business
partner, who would have to wait six years for a UA gold rush.
DBP
Mildred may not have been bright, but she didn't look twelve when Chaplin
married her, and if we can believe his story she was in fairly hot pursuit--
"Dorothy?"
Post by Constance Kuriyama
as was Lita, according to Jim Tully. I definitely believe Tully.
Lita does remind one a lot of Bebe... Without the acting talent. The problem
was Lita was years younger than Bebe, and Charlie years older than Harold.
Beg your pardon? Lita was pushing sixteen when Charlie hired her for GR.
And yes, he was older than Harold, but both were adults bedding underage
girls. Same difference, legally, whether you're 21 or 35.
Gimme a break. Charlie is casting her as a tarty nymph on "The Kid" for
goodness sake -- when she's what? Eleven? And then casting her AND her
mother in completely useless roles in "Idle Class?" Please open your eyes.
She was twelve.

The casting in _Idle Class_ may say more about mama's persistence or
Chuck Reisner's advocacy that Chaplin's continuing interest in Lita.

You'll have to explain to me Carlyle Robinson's account of Lita's
arrival at the studio during Chaplin's casting of _The Gold Rush_.
According to Robinson, when she presented herself Chaplin didn't even
recognize her, and had to be reminded who she was.

Robinson is often critical of Chaplin in his book, particularly in
regard to his relationships with women, but he was with Chaplin from
the Mutuals through _City Lights_, and if Chaplin had a continuing
interest in Lita, Robinson would surely have known about it.

Things aren't always what they appear to be. That's why I DO care
about facts.

Connie K.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Mildred was *working* during most of her marriage to Chaplin. Go to the
IMDB and you'll be amazed at how many films she made (not in child roles)
during the time they were married, which I'm sure Chaplin didn't like.
There's no doubt she played the "Mrs. Charlie Chaplin" card.
As did Lita.
Lita was a lot worse.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Chaplin's problem was that he couldn't resist a risky opportunity.
Connie K.
That was the difference.
DBP
The real difference may have been that either Harold or Bebe was prudent
enough to avoid a pregnancy.
Likely.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Given his later track record, I'm betting on Bebe. She seems in general
to have been far more clever and resourceful than Mildred or Lita.
Light years ahead. Bebe advanced from a comic's leading lady to supporting
actress to a major film star at Paramount. That most of those films do not
survive should not allow her to be underrated. She was huge by 1925 -- far
closer to Pickford or Swanson than to Mildred or Lita. And it appears to
have been very well planned by her too.
DBP
Shush
2006-02-02 21:37:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pearson
Post by Shush
I agreed with you that by all
accounts, he did a fine job of raising Suzanne. And I pointed out he
did a lot of great charitable work. But I'm also told, by a credible
authority, that he fathered children he didn't acknowledge. That's all
I'm saying here.
Again, why does this matter?
Because if it's true, as it seems to be, it's part of the historical
record. We're talking about real people who had real strengths and real
flaws. They weren't perfect people, and that's okay.

I understand the viewpoint that it's smarmy, negative and pointless
to examine the less-admirable side of historical figures. And if the
newsgroup's charter is changed to forbid such discussion, I'll be fine
with it.

But I don't project myself onto historical figures. I don't have a
personal stake in believing any of them to be unblemished. It doesn't
bother me to learn about the skeletons in their closets. If we're going
to examine the life of an historical figure, we're dishonest if we
suppress or deny the facts we don't like. And whitewashing the flaws of
a long-dead movie star does nothing to change the facts of his life; if
anything it reveals something about our own.

At the same time, it would be just as inappropriate to obsess
morbidly about the flaws without acknowledging the person's strengths.



--Shush--
Constance Kuriyama
2006-02-03 17:09:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pearson
On 2/2/06 11:15 AM, in article
Post by Shush
Post by George Shelps
Shush shouldn't have used it to
discredit my views on Lloyd.
I didn't discredit your view on Lloyd. I agreed with you that by all
accounts, he did a fine job of raising Suzanne. And I pointed out he
did a lot of great charitable work. But I'm also told, by a credible
authority, that he fathered children he didn't acknowledge. That's all
I'm saying here.
--Shush--
Again, why does this matter?
DBP
It matters because everything an artist does matters. How much it matters
may depend on your view of creativity.

Connie K.
Constance Kuriyama
2006-02-03 16:28:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shush
Post by George Shelps
Shush shouldn't have used it to
discredit my views on Lloyd.
I didn't discredit your view on Lloyd. I agreed with you that by all
accounts, he did a fine job of raising Suzanne. And I pointed out he
did a lot of great charitable work. But I'm also told, by a credible
authority, that he fathered children he didn't acknowledge. That's all
I'm saying here.
--Shush--
Never mind, Shush. Mr. Shelps is just in a snit because his "conservative"
comedian hero turns out to have actually committed adultry, which is a
charge he ridiculously tried to hang on Chaplin re. Marion Davies.

I doubt that many artists will serve as moral role models. Most of them are
outlaws at heart. Creativity and transgression are kindred impulses.

Conniei K.
George Shelps
2006-02-03 20:20:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Never mind, Shush. Mr. Shelps is just in
a snit because his "conservative"
comedian hero turns out to have actually
committed adultry,
No, I was responding to the notion that
Lloyd neglected to take paternal responsibility for his alleged
offspring
outside of his marriage....and that the source for this rumor offers no
substantiation for it.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
which is a charge he ridiculously tried to
hang on Chaplin re. Marion Davies.
Ridiculous. Davies and Hearst weren't
married and I never made an issue of
Chaplin's sex life.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
I doubt that many artists will serve as
moral role models. Most of them are
outlaws at heart. Creativity and
transgression are kindred impulses.
What would you know about creativity?

Transgression? Well, slander, surely,,,







++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."
Shush
2006-02-03 21:09:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Shelps
I was responding to the notion that
Lloyd neglected to take paternal responsibility for his alleged
offspring
outside of his marriage....and that the source for this rumor offers no
substantiation for it.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
which is a charge he ridiculously tried to
hang on Chaplin re. Marion Davies.
Ridiculous. Davies and Hearst weren't
married and I never made an issue of
Chaplin's sex life.
Isn't the issue of "stealing Hearst's mistress" a feature of your
"Citizen Chaplin" theory?

And, by the way, do you have any substantiation for that rumor?



--Shush--
George Shelps
2006-02-03 21:58:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Constance Kuriyama
which is a charge he ridiculously tried
to hang on Chaplin re. Marion Davies.
Ridiculous. Davies and Hearst weren't
married and I never made an issue of
Chaplin's sex life.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Isn't the issue of "stealing Hearst's
mistress" a feature of your "Citizen
Chaplin" theory?
Yes, but I don't equate that with adultery
nor do I make a moral judgment about
it. My point was that Chaplin sought
to adopt a Hearstian identity and one
way could have been to poach the
Great Man's mistress.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0And, by the way, do you have any
substantiation for that rumor?
I can't recall where I read it, but
the source seemed credible,

I don't think I ever made an issue
of Chaplin's sexual escapades. I
think that---in the context of Hollywood---
they weren't extraordinarily scandalous.

I do think, though, that he was a distant
and neglectful parent and that Harold
Lloyd was not.







++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."
David Pearson
2006-02-02 19:56:26 UTC
Permalink
On 2/2/06 10:11 AM, in article
Post by George Shelps
Post by David Pearson
If the lady in question admits a fault in
Harold Lloyd, then it should be taken as
a fact, until proven otherwise.
Surely, you jest.
In her case, no.
Post by George Shelps
Post by David Pearson
Otherwise it would not have been said.
Of all the people on earth, I would give
only that lady that kind of clout on this
particular topic --
She ought to publicly document her
claim, then. Not pass along tales.
It was almost certainly meant as a private aside, not for public broadcast.
Post by George Shelps
Post by David Pearson
much like on the topic of the film
"Napoleon," if a certain gentleman in
London says something critical about it,
criticism is almost certainly so.
I would not put her on the level of
Brownlow.
On the subject of Lloyd, she IS Brownlow.
Post by George Shelps
Post by David Pearson
Likewise,
there are two ladies, one the grand Keatonist, the other the grand
Chaplinista,
Post by David Pearson
whose word on their subjects are simply
beyond question.
Who is the latter?
I'll give you a hint...
She considers this newsgroup an utter disgrace, and because of that, doesn't
post here.
Post by George Shelps
Post by David Pearson
2) No one involved in the question likely
has ANY desire to give you any
EVIDENCE whatsoever, as all this is ofa
personal matter, and as such nobody's
damned business.
Then Shush shouldn't have used it to
discredit my views on Lloyd.
Point taken. But as you often do, you have a way of dragging this sort of
thing out endlessly. Lloyd doesn't deserve that.
Post by George Shelps
Post by David Pearson
Unlike ANOTHER SILENT COMEDIAN
-- you know, the one who managed to
repeatedly get his sex like dragged up
for public consumption in court cases for
25 years -- Harold Lloyd managed to be
quite discreet in such matters. You need
to have the decency to accept this and
drop it, or NOT accept this and drop it.
Tell that to Shush.
Obviously, I already have.
I'm also saying it to you too.

DBP
George Shelps
2006-02-02 22:54:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pearson
Post by George Shelps
I would not put her on the level of
Brownlow.
Post by David Pearson
On the subject of Lloyd, she IS Brownlow.
Hardly. How many Lloyd movies has she
restored?

If anyone is Brownlow, it is Suzanne.
(who gets constantly interrupted on the
commentary tracks by "Ms Brownlow")







++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."
David Pearson
2006-02-03 06:26:51 UTC
Permalink
On 2/2/06 4:54 PM, in article
Post by George Shelps
Post by David Pearson
Post by George Shelps
I would not put her on the level of
Brownlow.
Post by David Pearson
On the subject of Lloyd, she IS Brownlow.
Hardly. How many Lloyd movies has she
restored?
I meant that in the knowledge sense. Besides, film restoration is a
technical process, not a test of historical expertise.
Post by George Shelps
If anyone is Brownlow, it is Suzanne.
(who gets constantly interrupted on the
commentary tracks by "Ms Brownlow")
Suzanne was of course responsible for getting the films out, and clearly
loves her grandfather. But I think it's a fair bet the other lady knows a
lot more about the films.

DBP
Feuillade
2006-02-02 17:42:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pearson
1) If the lady in question admits a fault in Harold Lloyd,
then it should be taken as a fact, until proven otherwise.
Well, I don't know that I'd agree with this.

I would at least phrase it differently:

"If the lady in question, who worships Harold Lloyd and his work with a
fervor that stops just short of pagan idolatory, admits that Lloyd had
this fault, then that admission, while not necessarily being
uncritically accepted as fact, should at least be given a fair amount
of credence."
Post by David Pearson
Otherwise it would not have been said.
We don't know that. She could be mistaken (although I doubt she is)
for all sorts of reasons.
Post by David Pearson
Of all the people on earth, I would give only that lady that
kind of clout on this particular topic -- much like on the topic
of the film "Napoleon," if a certain gentleman in London says
something critical about it, that in itself is a concession that
the criticism is almost certainly so.
I know why we're not using the one woman's name, but what's wrong with
naming Kevin Brownlow?
Post by David Pearson
Likewise, there are two ladies, one the grand Keatonist, the
other the grand Chaplinista, whose word on their subjects are
simply beyond question.
Who's the "grand Chaplinista"? I didn't know there was one.
Post by David Pearson
2) No one involved in the question likely has ANY desire to give
you any EVIDENCE whatsoever, as all this is of a personal matter,
and as such nobody's damned business.
Well, whether they have a *desire* to give or produce evidence is
something we can't know, unless they tell us whether they desire to or
not.

They may have no *need* to in this context. Especially given who's
asking.

I wouldn't mind seeing some evidence, however.
Post by David Pearson
Unlike ANOTHER SILENT COMEDIAN -- you know, the
one who managed to repeatedly get his sex like dragged
up for public consumption in court cases for 25 years --
Harold Lloyd managed to be quite discreet in such matters.
You're sounding quite morally relativistic here. Are you sure you want
to be?

Because it *sounds* like what you're saying is:

"It's okay to do things that most people in this country would find
morally offensive (i.e. commit adultery and father children out of
wedlock whom you then refuse to acknowledge) as long as you're discreet
about it and keep it out of the courts and the press."

Do you really want to say that?
Post by David Pearson
You need to have the decency to accept this and drop it, or
NOT accept this and drop it.
Given the fact that the person involved is dead, I don't think that
decency necessarily enters into it.

The allegations are either true or they're not.

And if they're true (and as far as I can tell you're going under the
assumption that they are), I don't see what's so terrible about
discussing them.

Tom Moran
David Pearson
2006-02-02 22:50:05 UTC
Permalink
On 2/2/06 11:42 AM, in article
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
1) If the lady in question admits a fault in Harold Lloyd,
then it should be taken as a fact, until proven otherwise.
Well, I don't know that I'd agree with this.
"If the lady in question, who worships Harold Lloyd and his work with a
fervor that stops just short of pagan idolatory, admits that Lloyd had
this fault, then that admission, while not necessarily being
uncritically accepted as fact, should at least be given a fair amount
of credence."
Obviously, you've never read her book. Otherwise, you would not have made
the "pagan idolatary" crack. She's done more research on the subject than
the next three Lloyd experts put together. She's THE Lloyd authority, which,
quite frankly, puts her on a level of knowledge that you and I do not have.
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Otherwise it would not have been said.
We don't know that. She could be mistaken (although I doubt she is)
for all sorts of reasons.
If she said it, I'd say the odds would be long against her being wrong.
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Of all the people on earth, I would give only that lady that
kind of clout on this particular topic -- much like on the topic
of the film "Napoleon," if a certain gentleman in London says
something critical about it, that in itself is a concession that
the criticism is almost certainly so.
I know why we're not using the one woman's name, but what's wrong with
naming Kevin Brownlow?
Hey, it looks like people like playing those games. It is quite clear to
anybody with half a brain who the Lloyd lady is as well.
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Likewise, there are two ladies, one the grand Keatonist, the
other the grand Chaplinista, whose word on their subjects are
simply beyond question.
Who's the "grand Chaplinista"? I didn't know there was one.
Yeah, I think there is one. The question is whether she'd be willing to lead
again. Still looks like a bloody mess to me.
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
2) No one involved in the question likely has ANY desire to give
you any EVIDENCE whatsoever, as all this is of a personal matter,
and as such nobody's damned business.
Well, whether they have a *desire* to give or produce evidence is
something we can't know, unless they tell us whether they desire to or
not.
Quid pro quo.
Post by Feuillade
They may have no *need* to in this context. Especially given who's
asking.
Point taken.
Post by Feuillade
I wouldn't mind seeing some evidence, however.
Lotsa luck!
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Unlike ANOTHER SILENT COMEDIAN -- you know, the
one who managed to repeatedly get his sex like dragged
up for public consumption in court cases for 25 years --
Harold Lloyd managed to be quite discreet in such matters.
You're sounding quite morally relativistic here. Are you sure you want
to be?
"It's okay to do things that most people in this country would find
morally offensive (i.e. commit adultery and father children out of
wedlock whom you then refuse to acknowledge) as long as you're discreet
about it and keep it out of the courts and the press."
Do you really want to say that?
No, what I'm saying is that people who keep their private lives private
should be allowed to keep their private lives private. If Lloyd had problems
about birth control in his love life, he seems to have taken care of those
problems on his own. Being a former movie star and still a celebrity, he
would have been highly vulnerable if anyone involved felt wronged. That
everybody involved with it appears satisfied with the situation, why would
it possibly be of any real concern?
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
You need to have the decency to accept this and drop it, or
NOT accept this and drop it.
Given the fact that the person involved is dead, I don't think that
decency necessarily enters into it.
He's dead. His family is not.
To discuss this is simply in extremely bad taste.
Post by Feuillade
The allegations are either true or they're not.
Really? Allegations suggests something illegal, which no one has suggested.
And explain again why a celebrity's sex life in years following their
retirement is supposed to matter about anything, other than trivia and fan
titillation?
Post by Feuillade
And if they're true (and as far as I can tell you're going under the
assumption that they are), I don't see what's so terrible about
discussing them.
Tom Moran
As there aren't really anything solid to talk about, what is there to really
discuss?

DBP
Feuillade
2006-02-03 03:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pearson
On 2/2/06 11:42 AM, in article
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
1) If the lady in question admits a fault in Harold Lloyd,
then it should be taken as a fact, until proven otherwise.
Well, I don't know that I'd agree with this.
"If the lady in question, who worships Harold Lloyd and his work with a
fervor that stops just short of pagan idolatory, admits that Lloyd had
this fault, then that admission, while not necessarily being
uncritically accepted as fact, should at least be given a fair amount
of credence."
Obviously, you've never read her book. Otherwise, you would not have
made the "pagan idolatary" crack.
I've read what she's written about Lloyd, both on newsgroups and on her
website, and from those writings two conclusions can be drawn:

1) She is extremely knowledgable about Harold Lloyd.

and:

2) She worships the ground he used to walk on.

I do not consider what I wrote to be denigrating her. Merely the
statement of a fact.

I've had e-mail correspondence with her in the past and like her
personally.
Post by David Pearson
She's done more research on the subject than the next three
Lloyd experts put together. She's THE Lloyd authority, which,
quite frankly, puts her on a level of knowledge that you and I
do not have.
I wouldn't disagree with at all.

But she *still* admires Lloyd with a fervor that stops just short of
pagan idolatry. :)
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Otherwise it would not have been said.
We don't know that. She could be mistaken (although I doubt she is)
for all sorts of reasons.
If she said it, I'd say the odds would be long against her being wrong.
And the odds were against the Hitler Diaries being a forgery, but they
fooled Newsweek magazine.

These things do happen.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Of all the people on earth, I would give only that lady that
kind of clout on this particular topic -- much like on the topic
of the film "Napoleon," if a certain gentleman in London says
something critical about it, that in itself is a concession that
the criticism is almost certainly so.
I know why we're not using the one woman's name, but what's wrong with
naming Kevin Brownlow?
Hey, it looks like people like playing those games. It is quite clear to
anybody with half a brain who the Lloyd lady is as well.
I don't know about anybody, but I have at least half a brain (or so
I've been told), and I know who you're talking about. I presume others
do as well.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Likewise, there are two ladies, one the grand Keatonist, the
other the grand Chaplinista, whose word on their subjects are
simply beyond question.
Who's the "grand Chaplinista"? I didn't know there was one.
Yeah, I think there is one. The question is whether she'd be willing to lead
again. Still looks like a bloody mess to me.
I still have no idea who you're talking about.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
2) No one involved in the question likely has ANY desire to give
you any EVIDENCE whatsoever, as all this is of a personal matter,
and as such nobody's damned business.
Well, whether they have a *desire* to give or produce evidence is
something we can't know, unless they tell us whether they desire to or
not.
Quid pro quo.
Post by Feuillade
They may have no *need* to in this context. Especially given who's
asking.
Point taken.
I'm glad we agree on this at least.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
I wouldn't mind seeing some evidence, however.
Lotsa luck!
Well, I have no way of compelling anyone to produce evidence.

But I'd still like to see some, if some is forthcoming.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Unlike ANOTHER SILENT COMEDIAN -- you know, the
one who managed to repeatedly get his sex like dragged
up for public consumption in court cases for 25 years --
Harold Lloyd managed to be quite discreet in such matters.
You're sounding quite morally relativistic here. Are you sure you want
to be?
"It's okay to do things that most people in this country would find
morally offensive (i.e. commit adultery and father children out of
wedlock whom you then refuse to acknowledge) as long as you're discreet
about it and keep it out of the courts and the press."
Do you really want to say that?
No, what I'm saying is that people who keep their private lives private
should be allowed to keep their private lives private.
I agree. In theory.

But with public figures (and Lloyd was a public figure from his 20s
onward -- consider the fact that he made the cover of Time *after* his
movie career was over) I think the rules are different.

Let me put it another way. Do you think what Thomas Jefferson did or
did not do with Sally Hemings is their business and no one else's?
Post by David Pearson
If Lloyd had problems about birth control in his love life, he
seems to have taken care of those problems on his own.
Did he? Do we know that?

Do we know, for instance, that any of the revenue arising from the DVD
issue of his films is going to go to his natural but illegitimate
children?
Post by David Pearson
Being a former movie star and still a celebrity, he would have
been highly vulnerable if anyone involved felt wronged.
Well, from what has been said here (assuming it's factual), Lloyd make
sure to pick extra-curricular sex partners who had as much or more to
lose as he did if their assignations were to be made public.
Post by David Pearson
That everybody involved with it appears satisfied with the situation,
why would it possibly be of any real concern?
Well, if I was Harold Lloyd's grandchild, and I saw money being made
off my grandfather's work going to others that I wasn't getting any
piece of, I don't know that I'd be satisfied with the situation.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
You need to have the decency to accept this and drop it, or
NOT accept this and drop it.
Given the fact that the person involved is dead, I don't think that
decency necessarily enters into it.
He's dead. His family is not.
To discuss this is simply in extremely bad taste.
It's in bad taste if it's not true.

If it is true, I would claim that it's not.

Unless you want to assert that discussing the foibles of *any* public
figure is in bad taste.

Because JFK (adulterer) and Martin Luther King (adulterer and
plagiarist) have families too. Should they be off-limits?
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
The allegations are either true or they're not.
Really? Allegations suggests something illegal, [...]
No it doesn't.

An allegation is just an assertion. A statement that something is a
fact but is unsupported by evidence.

Once you supply the evidence, it is no longer an allegation and becomes
a fact.

As with Martin Luther King's plagiarism. It was an allegation until
the King Center itself provided irrefutable evidence that King had
plagiarized large sections of his doctoral dissertation. Now it's
considered a fact.
Post by David Pearson
[...] which no one has suggested.
You're right. No one has suggested that.
Post by David Pearson
And explain again why a celebrity's sex life in years following their
retirement is supposed to matter about anything, other than trivia
and fan titillation?
When a person's work is important, interest generally follows into that
person's life.

You may not approve, but that's human nature.

And sometimes artists behave in ways we may not find palatable.
Dostoyevsky was a compulsive gambler. Tolstoy was what we would call
today a serial rapist. Should we not know that? Does it make a
difference in how we perceive their work?

There are people who agree with you. And I can understand their
reasoning.

My feeling is the same as E.M. Forster. While they're alive, leave it
alone unless it hits the courts.

Once they're dead, they're fair game.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
And if they're true (and as far as I can tell you're going under the
assumption that they are), I don't see what's so terrible about
discussing them.
As there aren't really anything solid to talk about, what is there to really
discuss?
There's always something to discuss.

Tom Moran
David Pearson
2006-02-03 07:03:18 UTC
Permalink
On 2/2/06 9:12 PM, in article
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
On 2/2/06 11:42 AM, in article
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
1) If the lady in question admits a fault in Harold Lloyd,
then it should be taken as a fact, until proven otherwise.
Well, I don't know that I'd agree with this.
"If the lady in question, who worships Harold Lloyd and his work with a
fervor that stops just short of pagan idolatory, admits that Lloyd had
this fault, then that admission, while not necessarily being
uncritically accepted as fact, should at least be given a fair amount
of credence."
Obviously, you've never read her book. Otherwise, you would not have
made the "pagan idolatary" crack.
I've read what she's written about Lloyd, both on newsgroups and on her
1) She is extremely knowledgable about Harold Lloyd.
Yup.
Post by Feuillade
2) She worships the ground he used to walk on.
That too.
Post by Feuillade
I do not consider what I wrote to be denigrating her. Merely the
statement of a fact.
I've had e-mail correspondence with her in the past and like her
personally.
Most everybody does, including myself.
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
She's done more research on the subject than the next three
Lloyd experts put together. She's THE Lloyd authority, which,
quite frankly, puts her on a level of knowledge that you and I do not have.
I wouldn't disagree with at all.
But she *still* admires Lloyd with a fervor that stops just short of
pagan idolatry. :)
LOL.

I don't think that would cause her to alter reality for him. But being
disscreet is not a fib.
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Otherwise it would not have been said.
We don't know that. She could be mistaken (although I doubt she is)
for all sorts of reasons.
If she said it, I'd say the odds would be long against her being wrong.
And the odds were against the Hitler Diaries being a forgery, but they
fooled Newsweek magazine.
Having a publication background, I wouldn't trust Newsweek very far.
Journalists work on the fly. Historians -- who are often grown from fans --
tend to give things a closer look.
Post by Feuillade
These things do happen.
True. But again, if she did consider it to be true, her credibility, her
opinion carries great weight in the matter, almost a shifting in the burden
of proof.
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Of all the people on earth, I would give only that lady that
kind of clout on this particular topic -- much like on the topic
of the film "Napoleon," if a certain gentleman in London says
something critical about it, that in itself is a concession that
the criticism is almost certainly so.
I know why we're not using the one woman's name, but what's wrong with
naming Kevin Brownlow?
Hey, it looks like people like playing those games. It is quite clear to
anybody with half a brain who the Lloyd lady is as well.
I don't know about anybody, but I have at least half a brain (or so
I've been told), and I know who you're talking about. I presume others
do as well.
More than likely.
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Likewise, there are two ladies, one the grand Keatonist, the
other the grand Chaplinista, whose word on their subjects are
simply beyond question.
Who's the "grand Chaplinista"? I didn't know there was one.
Yeah, I think there is one. The question is whether she'd be willing to lead
again. Still looks like a bloody mess to me.
I still have no idea who you're talking about.
She is close friends with Mr. Totheroh.

:-)
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
2) No one involved in the question likely has ANY desire to give
you any EVIDENCE whatsoever, as all this is of a personal matter,
and as such nobody's damned business.
Well, whether they have a *desire* to give or produce evidence is
something we can't know, unless they tell us whether they desire to or
not.
Quid pro quo.
Post by Feuillade
They may have no *need* to in this context. Especially given who's
asking.
Point taken.
I'm glad we agree on this at least.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
I wouldn't mind seeing some evidence, however.
Lotsa luck!
Well, I have no way of compelling anyone to produce evidence.
But I'd still like to see some, if some is forthcoming.
I doubt it. It's a private thing.
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Unlike ANOTHER SILENT COMEDIAN -- you know, the
one who managed to repeatedly get his sex like dragged
up for public consumption in court cases for 25 years --
Harold Lloyd managed to be quite discreet in such matters.
You're sounding quite morally relativistic here. Are you sure you want
to be?
"It's okay to do things that most people in this country would find
morally offensive (i.e. commit adultery and father children out of
wedlock whom you then refuse to acknowledge) as long as you're discreet
about it and keep it out of the courts and the press."
Do you really want to say that?
No, what I'm saying is that people who keep their private lives private
should be allowed to keep their private lives private.
I agree. In theory.
But with public figures (and Lloyd was a public figure from his 20s
onward -- consider the fact that he made the cover of Time *after* his
movie career was over) I think the rules are different.
Let me put it another way. Do you think what Thomas Jefferson did or
did not do with Sally Hemings is their business and no one else's?
Actually, yes... If both were consenting.
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
If Lloyd had problems about birth control in his love life, he
seems to have taken care of those problems on his own.
Did he? Do we know that?
We really don't. It's all conjecture. Even the Lloyd lady's support of the
idea.
Post by Feuillade
Do we know, for instance, that any of the revenue arising from the DVD
issue of his films is going to go to his natural but illegitimate
children?
All far as I know, it is all going to the Harold Lloyd Trust, of which
Suzanne is the sole trustee -- and likely HL's wishes.
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Being a former movie star and still a celebrity, he would have
been highly vulnerable if anyone involved felt wronged.
Well, from what has been said here (assuming it's factual), Lloyd make
sure to pick extra-curricular sex partners who had as much or more to
lose as he did if their assignations were to be made public.
Such are thr risks of people fooling around.
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
That everybody involved with it appears satisfied with the situation,
why would it possibly be of any real concern?
Well, if I was Harold Lloyd's grandchild, and I saw money being made
off my grandfather's work going to others that I wasn't getting any
piece of, I don't know that I'd be satisfied with the situation.
Were you Harold Lloyd's grandchild, and Harold didn'twant to leave you
anything... Well... Tough!
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
You need to have the decency to accept this and drop it, or
NOT accept this and drop it.
Given the fact that the person involved is dead, I don't think that
decency necessarily enters into it.
He's dead. His family is not.
To discuss this is simply in extremely bad taste.
It's in bad taste if it's not true.
If it is true, I would claim that it's not.
Bad taste either way, FMPOV.
Post by Feuillade
Unless you want to assert that discussing the foibles of *any* public
figure is in bad taste.
Usually, yes.
Post by Feuillade
Because JFK (adulterer) and Martin Luther King (adulterer and
plagiarist) have families too. Should they be off-limits?
Probably. The Clinton thing was a sorry thing to sit through, leaving one
disgusted with everyone involved... And I do mean EVERYONE involved.
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
The allegations are either true or they're not.
Really? Allegations suggests something illegal, [...]
No it doesn't.
An allegation is just an assertion. A statement that something is a
fact but is unsupported by evidence.
Then you should have said assurtion.
Post by Feuillade
Once you supply the evidence, it is no longer an allegation and becomes
a fact.
Actually, a theory. But theories and facts can be the same thing... If only
the creationists understood that about evolution.
Post by Feuillade
As with Martin Luther King's plagiarism. It was an allegation until
the King Center itself provided irrefutable evidence that King had
plagiarized large sections of his doctoral dissertation. Now it's
considered a fact.
Post by David Pearson
[...] which no one has suggested.
You're right. No one has suggested that.
Post by David Pearson
And explain again why a celebrity's sex life in years following their
retirement is supposed to matter about anything, other than trivia
and fan titillation?
When a person's work is important, interest generally follows into that
person's life.
You may not approve, but that's human nature.
You're right on both counts.
Post by Feuillade
And sometimes artists behave in ways we may not find palatable.
Dostoyevsky was a compulsive gambler. Tolstoy was what we would call
today a serial rapist. Should we not know that? Does it make a
difference in how we perceive their work?
There are people who agree with you. And I can understand their
reasoning.
My feeling is the same as E.M. Forster. While they're alive, leave it
alone unless it hits the courts.
Once they're dead, they're fair game.
If they are dead, they can't sue you.
My feeling is that does not mean a dead person is "fair game."
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
And if they're true (and as far as I can tell you're going under the
assumption that they are), I don't see what's so terrible about
discussing them.
As there aren't really anything solid to talk about, what is there to really
discuss?
There's always something to discuss.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean it will lead anywhere.

DBP
Feuillade
2006-02-03 08:19:01 UTC
Permalink
I think we've pretty much agreed to disagree here, but I'll add a few
Post by David Pearson
On 2/2/06 9:12 PM, in article
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
On 2/2/06 11:42 AM, in article
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
1) If the lady in question admits a fault in Harold Lloyd,
then it should be taken as a fact, until proven otherwise.
Well, I don't know that I'd agree with this.
"If the lady in question, who worships Harold Lloyd and his work with a
fervor that stops just short of pagan idolatory, admits that Lloyd had
this fault, then that admission, while not necessarily being
uncritically accepted as fact, should at least be given a fair amount
of credence."
Obviously, you've never read her book. Otherwise, you would not have
made the "pagan idolatary" crack.
I've read what she's written about Lloyd, both on newsgroups and on her
1) She is extremely knowledgable about Harold Lloyd.
Yup.
Post by Feuillade
2) She worships the ground he used to walk on.
That too.
Post by Feuillade
I do not consider what I wrote to be denigrating her. Merely the
statement of a fact.
I've had e-mail correspondence with her in the past and like her
personally.
Most everybody does, including myself.
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
She's done more research on the subject than the next three
Lloyd experts put together. She's THE Lloyd authority, which,
quite frankly, puts her on a level of knowledge that you and I do not have.
I wouldn't disagree with at all.
But she *still* admires Lloyd with a fervor that stops just short of
pagan idolatry. :)
LOL.
I don't think that would cause her to alter reality for him. But being
disscreet is not a fib.
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Otherwise it would not have been said.
We don't know that. She could be mistaken (although I doubt she is)
for all sorts of reasons.
If she said it, I'd say the odds would be long against her being wrong.
And the odds were against the Hitler Diaries being a forgery, but they
fooled Newsweek magazine.
Having a publication background, I wouldn't trust Newsweek very far.
Journalists work on the fly. Historians -- who are often grown from fans --
tend to give things a closer look.
Historians get fooled as well -- including the very eminent British one
who vouched for the veracity of the Hitler Diaries. :)
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
These things do happen.
True. But again, if she did consider it to be true, her credibility, her
opinion carries great weight in the matter, almost a shifting in the burden
of proof.
This I would disagree with. Even the most eminent expert in a given
field can be wrong.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Of all the people on earth, I would give only that lady that
kind of clout on this particular topic -- much like on the topic
of the film "Napoleon," if a certain gentleman in London says
something critical about it, that in itself is a concession that
the criticism is almost certainly so.
I know why we're not using the one woman's name, but what's wrong with
naming Kevin Brownlow?
Hey, it looks like people like playing those games. It is quite clear to
anybody with half a brain who the Lloyd lady is as well.
I don't know about anybody, but I have at least half a brain (or so
I've been told), and I know who you're talking about. I presume others
do as well.
More than likely.
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Likewise, there are two ladies, one the grand Keatonist, the
other the grand Chaplinista, whose word on their subjects are
simply beyond question.
Who's the "grand Chaplinista"? I didn't know there was one.
Yeah, I think there is one. The question is whether she'd be willing to lead
again. Still looks like a bloody mess to me.
I still have no idea who you're talking about.
She is close friends with Mr. Totheroh.
:-)
Oh.

Two points then:

1) I don't know that I'd call her the "grand Chaplinista."

and:

2) I don't think she ever posted here all that much.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
2) No one involved in the question likely has ANY desire to give
you any EVIDENCE whatsoever, as all this is of a personal matter,
and as such nobody's damned business.
Well, whether they have a *desire* to give or produce evidence is
something we can't know, unless they tell us whether they desire to or
not.
Quid pro quo.
Post by Feuillade
They may have no *need* to in this context. Especially given who's
asking.
Point taken.
I'm glad we agree on this at least.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
I wouldn't mind seeing some evidence, however.
Lotsa luck!
Well, I have no way of compelling anyone to produce evidence.
But I'd still like to see some, if some is forthcoming.
I doubt it. It's a private thing.
You're probably right, but these things have a habit of coming out
eventually.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Unlike ANOTHER SILENT COMEDIAN -- you know, the
one who managed to repeatedly get his sex like dragged
up for public consumption in court cases for 25 years --
Harold Lloyd managed to be quite discreet in such matters.
You're sounding quite morally relativistic here. Are you sure you want
to be?
"It's okay to do things that most people in this country would find
morally offensive (i.e. commit adultery and father children out of
wedlock whom you then refuse to acknowledge) as long as you're discreet
about it and keep it out of the courts and the press."
Do you really want to say that?
No, what I'm saying is that people who keep their private lives private
should be allowed to keep their private lives private.
I agree. In theory.
But with public figures (and Lloyd was a public figure from his 20s
onward -- consider the fact that he made the cover of Time *after* his
movie career was over) I think the rules are different.
Let me put it another way. Do you think what Thomas Jefferson did or
did not do with Sally Hemings is their business and no one else's?
Actually, yes... If both were consenting.
Can a slave consent? A slave is by definition property. It's like
asking whether a chair can consent to having you sit on it.

Slaves, like children, are legally incapable of consent as the term is
usually defined.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
If Lloyd had problems about birth control in his love life, he
seems to have taken care of those problems on his own.
Did he? Do we know that?
We really don't. It's all conjecture. Even the Lloyd lady's support of the
idea.
On this we agree.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Do we know, for instance, that any of the revenue arising from the DVD
issue of his films is going to go to his natural but illegitimate
children?
All far as I know, it is all going to the Harold Lloyd Trust, of which
Suzanne is the sole trustee -- and likely HL's wishes.
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Being a former movie star and still a celebrity, he would have
been highly vulnerable if anyone involved felt wronged.
Well, from what has been said here (assuming it's factual), Lloyd make
sure to pick extra-curricular sex partners who had as much or more to
lose as he did if their assignations were to be made public.
Such are thr risks of people fooling around.
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
That everybody involved with it appears satisfied with the situation,
why would it possibly be of any real concern?
Well, if I was Harold Lloyd's grandchild, and I saw money being made
off my grandfather's work going to others that I wasn't getting any
piece of, I don't know that I'd be satisfied with the situation.
Were you Harold Lloyd's grandchild, and Harold didn'twant to leave you
anything... Well... Tough!
That's what courts are for. A lawsuit and a few DNA tests would open
up that ball of wax very quickly.

After that, what Harold wanted might not matter in the eyes of a judge.

Illegitimate children have sued estates of famous people before, with
mixed results.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
You need to have the decency to accept this and drop it, or
NOT accept this and drop it.
Given the fact that the person involved is dead, I don't think that
decency necessarily enters into it.
He's dead. His family is not.
To discuss this is simply in extremely bad taste.
It's in bad taste if it's not true.
If it is true, I would claim that it's not.
Bad taste either way, FMPOV.
On this we disagree. Truth comes before taste.

JFK's sex life and drug use is not very salubrious. But it should be
part of the historical record because it affected history (the Cuban
Missile Crisis happened in large part because Krushchev thought JFK
could be pushed around -- a conclusion he came to after meeting him in
Vienna when he was whacked to the gills on pain medication after
messing up his back planting a tree in Canada).
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Unless you want to assert that discussing the foibles of *any* public
figure is in bad taste.
Usually, yes.
On this we disagree.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Because JFK (adulterer) and Martin Luther King (adulterer and
plagiarist) have families too. Should they be off-limits?
Probably. The Clinton thing was a sorry thing to sit through, leaving one
disgusted with everyone involved... And I do mean EVERYONE involved.
I was more disgusted with some than others.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
The allegations are either true or they're not.
Really? Allegations suggests something illegal, [...]
No it doesn't.
An allegation is just an assertion. A statement that something is a
fact but is unsupported by evidence.
Then you should have said assurtion.
To my mind assertion and allegation are synonymous.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Once you supply the evidence, it is no longer an allegation and becomes
a fact.
Actually, a theory. But theories and facts can be the same thing... If only
the creationists understood that about evolution.
Is it a theory that the Earth revolves around the sun?

Once again, you're flirting with relativism here.

There are such things as facts, and things can be proven beyond the
point of theory.

Take the matter of Jefferson and Sally Hemings. With the advent of DNA
evidence, we now know that whoever fathered her children, they were
members of Jefferson's family. While we don't know definitively that
Jefferson was specifically the father, it makes the matter far more
likely.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
As with Martin Luther King's plagiarism. It was an allegation until
the King Center itself provided irrefutable evidence that King had
plagiarized large sections of his doctoral dissertation. Now it's
considered a fact.
Post by David Pearson
[...] which no one has suggested.
You're right. No one has suggested that.
Post by David Pearson
And explain again why a celebrity's sex life in years following their
retirement is supposed to matter about anything, other than trivia
and fan titillation?
When a person's work is important, interest generally follows into that
person's life.
You may not approve, but that's human nature.
You're right on both counts.
I'm glad we agree.

You may wish that people had more privacy and society as a whole had
more discretion, but that's not the society we live in.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
And sometimes artists behave in ways we may not find palatable.
Dostoyevsky was a compulsive gambler. Tolstoy was what we would call
today a serial rapist. Should we not know that? Does it make a
difference in how we perceive their work?
There are people who agree with you. And I can understand their
reasoning.
My feeling is the same as E.M. Forster. While they're alive, leave it
alone unless it hits the courts.
Once they're dead, they're fair game.
If they are dead, they can't sue you.
My feeling is that does not mean a dead person is "fair game."
It amounts to one and the same in this society.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
And if they're true (and as far as I can tell you're going under the
assumption that they are), I don't see what's so terrible about
discussing them.
As there aren't really anything solid to talk about, what is there to really
discuss?
There's always something to discuss.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean it will lead anywhere.
Maybe not, but if no one indulged in discussions that didn't lead
anywhere Usenet would be a very quiet place indeed.

Tom Moran
David Totheroh
2006-02-03 13:03:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Feuillade
I think we've pretty much agreed to disagree here, but I'll add a few
Post by David Pearson
On 2/2/06 9:12 PM, in article
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
On 2/2/06 11:42 AM, in article
<huge snip>
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
And explain again why a celebrity's sex life in years following their
retirement is supposed to matter about anything, other than trivia
and fan titillation?
When a person's work is important, interest generally follows into that
person's life.
You may not approve, but that's human nature.
You're right on both counts.
I'm glad we agree.
You may wish that people had more privacy and society as a whole had
more discretion, but that's not the society we live in.
This smacks of the "but they do it too" defense. Seems to me that codes
of conduct ought not be redefined every time a transgressor decideds to
push the envelop a bit.

<much smaller snip>
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
As there aren't really anything solid to talk about, what is there to really
discuss?
There's always something to discuss.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean it will lead anywhere.
Maybe not, but if no one indulged in discussions that didn't lead
anywhere Usenet would be a very quiet place indeed.
And that would be a bad thing because....? Maybe it's a New York thing,
but from where I sit (and as one who too often contributes to the
noise), large amounts of silence punctuated by occasional bits of
meaningful sound are far preferable to constant noise.
Feuillade
2006-02-03 15:02:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Totheroh
Post by Feuillade
I think we've pretty much agreed to disagree here, but I'll add a few
Post by David Pearson
On 2/2/06 9:12 PM, in article
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
On 2/2/06 11:42 AM, in article
<huge snip>
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
And explain again why a celebrity's sex life in years following their
retirement is supposed to matter about anything, other than trivia
and fan titillation?
When a person's work is important, interest generally follows into that
person's life.
You may not approve, but that's human nature.
You're right on both counts.
I'm glad we agree.
You may wish that people had more privacy and society as a whole had
more discretion, but that's not the society we live in.
This smacks of the "but they do it too" defense. Seems to me that codes
of conduct ought not be redefined every time a transgressor decideds to
push the envelop a bit.
But codes of conduct have been redefined several times during your
lifetime and mine, and are in the process of being redefined still
further.

It wasn't all that long ago that people could use the dreaded "N" word
or tell a Jew joke in casual conversation and no one thought anything
of it. Now it's considered verboten.

Or, as Robert Towne once put it, people used to discuss how much money
they made but wouldn't talk about their sex lives. Now they discuss
sex all the time but not how much money they make.

Different times, different manners, as the French say.
Post by David Totheroh
<much smaller snip>
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
As there aren't really anything solid to talk about, what is there to really
discuss?
There's always something to discuss.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean it will lead anywhere.
Maybe not, but if no one indulged in discussions that didn't lead
anywhere Usenet would be a very quiet place indeed.
And that would be a bad thing because....? Maybe it's a New York thing,
but from where I sit (and as one who too often contributes to the
noise), large amounts of silence punctuated by occasional bits of
meaningful sound are far preferable to constant noise.
It's not a New York thing, it's more like a human nature thing.

As in: natura abhorret a vacua

Tom Moran
David Totheroh
2006-02-03 16:20:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Totheroh
Post by Feuillade
I think we've pretty much agreed to disagree here, but I'll add a few
Post by David Pearson
On 2/2/06 9:12 PM, in article
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
On 2/2/06 11:42 AM, in article
<huge snip>
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
And explain again why a celebrity's sex life in years following their
retirement is supposed to matter about anything, other than trivia
and fan titillation?
When a person's work is important, interest generally follows into that
person's life.
You may not approve, but that's human nature.
You're right on both counts.
I'm glad we agree.
You may wish that people had more privacy and society as a whole had
more discretion, but that's not the society we live in.
This smacks of the "but they do it too" defense. Seems to me that codes
of conduct ought not be redefined every time a transgressor decideds to
push the envelop a bit.
But codes of conduct have been redefined several times during your
lifetime and mine, and are in the process of being redefined still
further.
It wasn't all that long ago that people could use the dreaded "N" word
or tell a Jew joke in casual conversation and no one thought anything
of it. Now it's considered verboten.
Or, as Robert Towne once put it, people used to discuss how much money
they made but wouldn't talk about their sex lives. Now they discuss
sex all the time but not how much money they make.
Different times, different manners, as the French say.
Post by David Totheroh
<much smaller snip>
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Post by David Pearson
As there aren't really anything solid to talk about, what is there to really
discuss?
There's always something to discuss.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean it will lead anywhere.
Maybe not, but if no one indulged in discussions that didn't lead
anywhere Usenet would be a very quiet place indeed.
And that would be a bad thing because....? Maybe it's a New York thing,
but from where I sit (and as one who too often contributes to the
noise), large amounts of silence punctuated by occasional bits of
meaningful sound are far preferable to constant noise.
It's not a New York thing, it's more like a human nature thing.
As in: natura abhorret a vacua
Personally, I've never thought of silence as vacuous.
Shush
2006-02-03 17:11:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Who's the "grand Chaplinista"? I didn't know there was one.
Yeah, I think there is one. The question is whether she'd be willing to lead
again. Still looks like a bloody mess to me.
What do you mean?



--Shush--
David Pearson
2006-02-04 04:10:01 UTC
Permalink
On 2/3/06 11:11 AM, in article
Post by Shush
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Who's the "grand Chaplinista"? I didn't know there was one.
Yeah, I think there is one. The question is whether she'd be willing to lead
again. Still looks like a bloody mess to me.
What do you mean?
I mean she grew weary, and walked away. In a single post several years ago,
she expressed her disgust with alt.movies.chaplin, and with good reason, has
not returned.

The horror to many outside alt.movies.chaplin is the spectacle. No other
silent film figure has such a strongly devoted following as Charles Chaplin
-- sometimes you guys can be downright fanatically loyal -- yet no other
silent figure has supporters so eager to daily rip their subject apart. It
was -- and often still is -- more a debating club than fan appreciation
group.

You guys can be an odd bunch.

:-|

DBP
George Shelps
2006-02-04 04:43:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pearson
more a debating club than fan
appreciation group.
Hello? It is not alt.fan.chaplin.

There are fan newsgroups. This
is not one of them.







++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."
Constance Kuriyama
2006-02-04 05:04:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pearson
On 2/3/06 11:11 AM, in article
Post by Shush
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Who's the "grand Chaplinista"? I didn't know there was one.
Yeah, I think there is one. The question is whether she'd be willing to lead
again. Still looks like a bloody mess to me.
What do you mean?
I mean she grew weary, and walked away. In a single post several years ago,
she expressed her disgust with alt.movies.chaplin, and with good reason, has
not returned.
The horror to many outside alt.movies.chaplin is the spectacle. No other
silent film figure has such a strongly devoted following as Charles Chaplin
-- sometimes you guys can be downright fanatically loyal -- yet no other
silent figure has supporters so eager to daily rip their subject apart. It
was -- and often still is -- more a debating club than fan appreciation
group.
You guys can be an odd bunch.
:-|
DBP
So maybe some of us are just interested in truth rather than idol worship. I
hope that's not too odd.

As for those who are mainly interested in attacking Chaplin and other
posters, there's no getting rid of them; they infest every newsgroup
I've ever observed.

If you know of another internet where these people don't exist, perhaps
you'd better tell us about it.

Connie K.
David Pearson
2006-02-04 08:36:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
On 2/3/06 11:11 AM, in article
Post by Shush
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Who's the "grand Chaplinista"? I didn't know there was one.
Yeah, I think there is one. The question is whether she'd be willing to lead
again. Still looks like a bloody mess to me.
What do you mean?
I mean she grew weary, and walked away. In a single post several years ago,
she expressed her disgust with alt.movies.chaplin, and with good reason, has
not returned.
The horror to many outside alt.movies.chaplin is the spectacle. No other
silent film figure has such a strongly devoted following as Charles Chaplin
-- sometimes you guys can be downright fanatically loyal -- yet no other
silent figure has supporters so eager to daily rip their subject apart. It
was -- and often still is -- more a debating club than fan appreciation
group.
You guys can be an odd bunch.
:-|
DBP
So maybe some of us are just interested in truth rather than idol worship. I
hope that's not too odd.
Umm, you guys often go WAY beyond "truth," and often at the idol's expense.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
As for those who are mainly interested in attacking Chaplin and other
posters, there's no getting rid of them; they infest every newsgroup
I've ever observed.
They do, which many, perhaps most of them, have moved on into the Yahoo
lists to resolve the problems. The Chaplin group has hundreds of members,
very few who post here.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
If you know of another internet where these people don't exist, perhaps
you'd better tell us about it.
Connie K.
I just did.

:-)

DBP
Constance Kuriyama
2006-02-04 17:36:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
On 2/3/06 11:11 AM, in article
Post by Shush
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Who's the "grand Chaplinista"? I didn't know there was one.
Yeah, I think there is one. The question is whether she'd be willing to lead
again. Still looks like a bloody mess to me.
What do you mean?
I mean she grew weary, and walked away. In a single post several years ago,
she expressed her disgust with alt.movies.chaplin, and with good reason, has
not returned.
The horror to many outside alt.movies.chaplin is the spectacle. No other
silent film figure has such a strongly devoted following as Charles Chaplin
-- sometimes you guys can be downright fanatically loyal -- yet no other
silent figure has supporters so eager to daily rip their subject apart. It
was -- and often still is -- more a debating club than fan appreciation
group.
You guys can be an odd bunch.
:-|
DBP
So maybe some of us are just interested in truth rather than idol worship. I
hope that's not too odd.
Umm, you guys often go WAY beyond "truth," and often at the idol's expense.
If you are referring to me, be specific. When have I gone "beyond truth"?
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
As for those who are mainly interested in attacking Chaplin and other
posters, there's no getting rid of them; they infest every newsgroup
I've ever observed.
They do, which many, perhaps most of them, have moved on into the Yahoo
lists to resolve the problems. The Chaplin group has hundreds of members,
very few who post here.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
If you know of another internet where these people don't exist, perhaps
you'd better tell us about it.
Connie K.
I just did.
:-)
DBP
I know about the Yahoo group. I lurked there for awhile,
and all I saw was a lot of badmouthing of other
Chaplin people, including your "Grand Chaplinista,"
who was criticized roundly for no longer putting out
_Limelight_.

If all they do there is claim their superiority to other
Chaplin folks, I'd say they're a lot of idiots.

Also, most of the "discussion" there was either gush or
basic information. If that's what you like, why don't
you go there?

On the other hand, if you readlly want to discuss something
about Chaplin insead of swapping gush or congratulating yourself
on your superiority to others, why don't you start a constructive
thread instead of complaining? You're just adding to the
static you're complaining about.

Connie K.
David Pearson
2006-02-04 20:08:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
On 2/3/06 11:11 AM, in article
Post by Shush
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Who's the "grand Chaplinista"? I didn't know there was one.
Yeah, I think there is one. The question is whether she'd be willing to lead
again. Still looks like a bloody mess to me.
What do you mean?
I mean she grew weary, and walked away. In a single post several years ago,
she expressed her disgust with alt.movies.chaplin, and with good reason, has
not returned.
The horror to many outside alt.movies.chaplin is the spectacle. No other
silent film figure has such a strongly devoted following as Charles Chaplin
-- sometimes you guys can be downright fanatically loyal -- yet no other
silent figure has supporters so eager to daily rip their subject apart. It
was -- and often still is -- more a debating club than fan appreciation
group.
You guys can be an odd bunch.
:-|
DBP
So maybe some of us are just interested in truth rather than idol worship. I
hope that's not too odd.
Umm, you guys often go WAY beyond "truth," and often at the idol's expense.
If you are referring to me, be specific. When have I gone "beyond truth"?
I am not referring to you.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
As for those who are mainly interested in attacking Chaplin and other
posters, there's no getting rid of them; they infest every newsgroup
I've ever observed.
They do, which many, perhaps most of them, have moved on into the Yahoo
lists to resolve the problems. The Chaplin group has hundreds of members,
very few who post here.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
If you know of another internet where these people don't exist, perhaps
you'd better tell us about it.
Connie K.
I just did.
:-)
DBP
I know about the Yahoo group. I lurked there for awhile,
and all I saw was a lot of badmouthing of other
Chaplin people, including your "Grand Chaplinista,"
who was criticized roundly for no longer putting out
_Limelight_.
I remember. Not a happy moment for anyone.
A lot of people loved that publication and hated losing it.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
If all they do there is claim their superiority to other
Chaplin folks, I'd say they're a lot of idiots.
You've obviously not been there in a very, VERY long time...
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Also, most of the "discussion" there was either gush or
basic information. If that's what you like, why don't
you go there?
I have, I do, and I will again. I don't hamstring myself by closing myself
off others opinions. I'm in about 20 silent film groups, and another 30 on
other topics. Many of them about the various comedians.

And since WHEN did gushing over Charlie Chaplin become a mortal sin for
people who love Chaplin?
Post by Constance Kuriyama
On the other hand, if you readlly want to discuss something
about Chaplin insead of swapping gush or congratulating yourself
on your superiority to others, why don't you start a constructive
thread instead of complaining? You're just adding to the
static you're complaining about.
Connie K.
I have a counter proposal...

Instead of running around in an endless "damage control" mode in reaction to
what others MIGHT say, why don't you actually take the bull by the horns,
and go into a DETAILED discussion of Charlie's films -- INCLUDING the basic
information so those people who love Charlie who do not share your brilliant
but esoteric knowledge might overcome their fears about posting online, and
contribute? This could be a positive and eventually powerful force in
helping to rebuild Charlie's fan base -- as drawing in people, like those at
Yahoo, who love Chaplin, and increasing THEIR knowledge will build upon
itself, you can make them better fans.

You DO know what I mean Connie? It is called being an EDUCATOR. Several of
the people who post here could do WONDERFUL things it this regard. And it
certainly beats the hell out of resorting to discussions about dead actors'
off-camera sex lives -- which is scraping the barrel to say the least.
Reasons for Jackie Coogan's ongoing hair loss must be an upcoming thread.

There are a bunch of Chaplin fans at Yahoo -- about 350 the last time I
looked... Why don't you get off your high horse, clean up the joint and
invite them over? Or do you really prefer the dysfunctional status quo of
gushing fans in one pen, while aging experts play fencing games in the
other? Do you secretly love George Shelps THAT much??

DBP
Constance Kuriyama
2006-02-05 17:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
On 2/3/06 11:11 AM, in article
Post by Shush
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Who's the "grand Chaplinista"? I didn't know there was one.
Yeah, I think there is one. The question is whether she'd be willing to lead
again. Still looks like a bloody mess to me.
What do you mean?
I mean she grew weary, and walked away. In a single post several years ago,
she expressed her disgust with alt.movies.chaplin, and with good reason, has
not returned.
The horror to many outside alt.movies.chaplin is the spectacle. No other
silent film figure has such a strongly devoted following as Charles Chaplin
-- sometimes you guys can be downright fanatically loyal -- yet no other
silent figure has supporters so eager to daily rip their subject apart. It
was -- and often still is -- more a debating club than fan appreciation
group.
You guys can be an odd bunch.
:-|
DBP
So maybe some of us are just interested in truth rather than idol worship. I
hope that's not too odd.
Umm, you guys often go WAY beyond "truth," and often at the idol's expense.
If you are referring to me, be specific. When have I gone "beyond truth"?
I am not referring to you.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
As for those who are mainly interested in attacking Chaplin and other
posters, there's no getting rid of them; they infest every newsgroup
I've ever observed.
They do, which many, perhaps most of them, have moved on into the Yahoo
lists to resolve the problems. The Chaplin group has hundreds of members,
very few who post here.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
If you know of another internet where these people don't exist, perhaps
you'd better tell us about it.
Connie K.
I just did.
:-)
DBP
I know about the Yahoo group. I lurked there for awhile,
and all I saw was a lot of badmouthing of other
Chaplin people, including your "Grand Chaplinista,"
who was criticized roundly for no longer putting out
_Limelight_.
I remember. Not a happy moment for anyone.
A lot of people loved that publication and hated losing it.
I don't think that justifies blaming the person who made it
available, presumably as long as she could. There seemed to
be a sentiment there that she "owed" them an explanation.

And how do you justify condemning an entire group for the
problems mainly caused by a dubiously rational resident
troll? Perhaps the Yahoo group would welcome some of our
malcontents? Why don't you encourage our political
posters to moove there as well. That should liven things
up.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
If all they do there is claim their superiority to other
Chaplin folks, I'd say they're a lot of idiots.
You've obviously not been there in a very, VERY long time...
For good reason.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Also, most of the "discussion" there was either gush or
basic information. If that's what you like, why don't
you go there?
I have, I do, and I will again. I don't hamstring myself by closing myself
off others opinions. I'm in about 20 silent film groups, and another 30 on
other topics. Many of them about the various comedians.
I lurk in a fair number of groups. I post only when the topics interest or
amuse me.
Post by David Pearson
And since WHEN did gushing over Charlie Chaplin become a mortal sin for
people who love Chaplin?
It's no sin. It just isn't interesting.
Post by David Pearson
Post by Constance Kuriyama
On the other hand, if you readlly want to discuss something
about Chaplin insead of swapping gush or congratulating yourself
on your superiority to others, why don't you start a constructive
thread instead of complaining? You're just adding to the
static you're complaining about.
Connie K.
I have a counter proposal...
Instead of running around in an endless "damage control" mode in reaction to
what others MIGHT say, why don't you actually take the bull by the horns,
and go into a DETAILED discussion of Charlie's films -- INCLUDING the basic
information so those people who love Charlie who do not share your brilliant
but esoteric knowledge might overcome their fears about posting online, and
contribute? This could be a positive and eventually powerful force in
helping to rebuild Charlie's fan base -- as drawing in people, like those at
Yahoo, who love Chaplin, and increasing THEIR knowledge will build upon
itself, you can make them better fans.
Some of that has been going on here--before you started your reformist
campaign, that is. I've tried it on other groups, but
many people who are just fans don't want to engage in serious discussion.
They just want to have fun and be enthusiastic. That's fine for them.
It doens't interest me.
Post by David Pearson
You DO know what I mean Connie? It is called being an EDUCATOR. Several of
the people who post here could do WONDERFUL things it this regard. And it
certainly beats the hell out of resorting to discussions about dead actors'
off-camera sex lives -- which is scraping the barrel to say the least.
Reasons for Jackie Coogan's ongoing hair loss must be an upcoming thread.
I doubt it. But on the Yahoo group, during my lurking period, there was
endless talk about "the kids," Charlie's lack of parenting skills, etc.,
which really is irrelevant to what he did as an artist.

His sex life is not irrelevant--though it may not appeal to you or
some fans as a topic.
Post by David Pearson
There are a bunch of Chaplin fans at Yahoo -- about 350 the last time I
looked... Why don't you get off your high horse, clean up the joint and
invite them over?
And how, pray tell, do I "clean up" a newsgroup? As I've pointed out
many times, unmoderated newsgroups can't be contrtolled.


Also, Yahoo groups are easier for computer newbies to access, which
partly accounts for the numbers. You'd be surprised how many people
who use computers know nothing about newsgroups.


Or do you really prefer the dysfunctional status quo of
Post by David Pearson
gushing fans in one pen, while aging experts play fencing games in the
other? Do you secretly love George Shelps THAT much??
DBP
And what's to prevent Mr. Shelps from following us to Yahoo?

Connie K.
George Shelps
2006-02-05 17:55:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Why don't you encourage our political
posters to moove there as well. That
should liven things up.
Beginning with Richard Carnahan, who
has initiated a number of political
threads.







++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."

Feuillade
2006-02-04 06:01:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pearson
On 2/3/06 11:11 AM, in article
Post by Shush
Post by David Pearson
Post by Feuillade
Who's the "grand Chaplinista"? I didn't know there was one.
Yeah, I think there is one. The question is whether she'd be willing to lead
again. Still looks like a bloody mess to me.
What do you mean?
I mean she grew weary, and walked away. In a single post several years ago,
she expressed her disgust with alt.movies.chaplin, and with good reason, has
not returned.
The horror to many outside alt.movies.chaplin is the spectacle. No other
silent film figure has such a strongly devoted following as Charles Chaplin
-- sometimes you guys can be downright fanatically loyal -- yet no other
silent figure has supporters so eager to daily rip their subject apart. It
was -- and often still is -- more a debating club than fan appreciation
group.
You guys can be an odd bunch.
You say "you guys" as if you are not currently posting here yourself.

You're starting to sound a little like the guy at the club who says,
"This place is *so* boring," to whom you want to ask, "Well, if it's so
boring, why are you still here?"

Tom Moran
Constance Kuriyama
2006-02-02 19:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shush
Post by George Shelps
Post by Shush
I don't think it is in the Dardis book. It
*is* mentioned obliquely in one of the
Kenneth Anger books, which was the
only place I'd ever seen it mentioned in
print.
Now ~there's~ a reliable source!
Well, this time he turned out to be right. Who'd a thunk it.
Anger isn't right about everything, but he certainly isn't wrong
about everything, either.

It's interesting that he's never been successfully sued. His books
are a kind of monument to Hollywood sleeze, which is inevitably a
aixture of fantasy and fact,

As are his incredibly interesting films.


Connie K.
Post by Shush
Post by George Shelps
Perhaps
she might toddle over here and confirm
it? Or maybe publish the info, instead of
just gossiping about it?
She wasn't "gossiping" about anything, she just told the truth about
an historical figure whose life she's spent a decade researching. And
my understanding is that neither the daughter nor the Estate
particularly wants a Berlin Wall floodlight of public attention on the
matter.
Post by George Shelps
Post by Shush
I asked her about the rumor and she
confirmed it,
How? By producing a birth certificate
with Harold listed as the father? By
copies of letters from "Daddy" Lloyd?
My conversation with her was a few years ago, but I recall her
saying she'd met the daughter, and I believe she saw some
correspondence between Harold and the mother, which the daughter
presented to her. Whatever the case was, it was enough to convince her,
and that's good enough for me. But if you'd prefer to dismiss it all as
wild and scurrilous fiction, you certainly may.
--Shush--
George Shelps
2006-02-01 02:01:03 UTC
Permalink
but he also fathered a number of
illegitimate kids that he never
acknowledged, kids who had to grow up
without the benefit of a father's influence.
I guess I must have missed the source
for this info. Can you direct me?







++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."
Constance Kuriyama
2006-02-02 18:50:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shush
Post by George Shelps
Compare Harold Lloyd in the same
period. When his daughter's marital
strife made her unable to raise her own
daughter effectively, Harold took over
the parental role and raised little Suzanne as if he were her father.
And now Suzanne, instead of writing
tell-all Daddy-dearest books, has given
us a magnificent tribute to her
grandfather's comedy talent, the DVD Lloyd Collection.
I'm not sure I'd want to pin a good-parenting medal to Harold's
chest. He did a fine job raising Suzanne, but he also fathered a number
of illegitimate kids that he never acknowledged, kids who had to grow
up without the benefit of a father's influence.
--Shush--
At the risk of being accused of "making excuses" for Chaplin, I will point
out that Lloyd had a more stable family background than Chaplin. Yet in
spite of Chaplin's problems with assuming a paternal role, nobody wrote a
"daddy dearest" book about him either. He comes off rather well in
Charles Jr.'s book, Sydney has said a number of positive things about his
father, and the Oona brood seems to have mellowed out on him as well.

Furthermore, he even supported a child that WASN'T his.

Lloyd evidently did a good job with his granddaughter. Harold Jr. was
another matter. Chaplin never failed quite that drastically as a father.

In the case of Chaplin's first two sons, there wasn't much maternal
involvement either. They were farmed out to their maternal grandmother
until Chaplin decided that he would have a hand in raising them. And he
certainly provided for them and looked out for their financial welfare.

I'd say neither one would qualify as an ideal parent, but both obviously
made an effort to fill the role at some point, which is more than many
people do.

Connie K.
George Shelps
2006-02-02 22:51:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Constance Kuriyama
Lloyd evidently did a good job with his
granddaughter. Harold Jr. was another
matter. Chaplin never failed quite that
drastically as a father.
How so? Was he responsible for
Junior's homosexuality?

By all accounts, he did everything he
could to help his son get a career start.
Post by Constance Kuriyama
I'd say neither one would qualify as an
ideal parent, but both obviously made an
effort to fill the role at some point, which
is more than many people do.
I beg to differ.

I'd say that Chaplin was a fairly distant
father (per Jane) and that Harold was
very involved with, even doted upon
his kids. Can you imagine Chaplin taking
the whole family out for regular bowling
nights?

One of the reasons that Suzanne
gave for putting together the superb
DVD collection was to, she has said,
to pay her grandparents back for the
wonderful life they gave her.







++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."
Feuillade
2006-01-29 23:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Neibaur
Feuillade 1/27/06 11:34 PM
Post by Feuillade
Oh Jim, you're such a cynic.
This could end up being a classic along the lines of "Voyage Around My
Room."
Which means Jane's book will be somehow more palatable in the original
French?
Do we know that she's writing it in French?

Tom Moran
James Neibaur
2006-01-30 00:12:26 UTC
Permalink
Feuillade 1/29/06 5:37 PM
Post by Feuillade
Post by James Neibaur
Which means Jane's book will be somehow more palatable in the original
French?
Do we know that she's writing it in French?
No, I was just correlating my comment with the Xavier de Maistre book you
brought up.

JN
Feuillade
2006-01-30 02:42:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Neibaur
Feuillade 1/29/06 5:37 PM
Post by Feuillade
Post by James Neibaur
Which means Jane's book will be somehow more palatable
in the original French?
Do we know that she's writing it in French?
No, I was just correlating my comment with the Xavier de Maistre
book you brought up.
Ah. I see.

I have to admit, though, I am interested in seeing what she writes.

But I also have to admit I share your skepticism that it will ever see
the light of day.

She admits that her siblings seem to consider Jane a bit of a
dilletante who never finished what she starts.

And they might be on to something.

I on the other hand give her credit for trying.

Tom Moran
James Neibaur
2006-01-30 04:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Feuillade 1/29/06 8:42 PM
Post by Feuillade
I on the other hand give her credit for trying.
I also give her credit for being trying

JN
Loading...