d120421

Hi Cinemabuff64: I don't think Jack was denying that Deanna was cute, but that was "cutesy," i.e, arch or coy in her manner. On that point, I would agree. (Of course, I also agree with your comments concerning her eyes She was completely natural in front of the camera and had a very witty, intelligent acting style. I actually have an excerpt of a review of a concert she gave at the Mormon Tabernacle in 1938, and her stage manner also seemed to be very natural: "A full hour before starting time, 15,000 persons had jammed the 8,000 capacity building. Thousands more struggled to get in. At eight o'clock it was announced that Deanna would sing 'Ave Maria' by Gounod, then she appears. She wears a simple. becoming white party dress, shoes with rather low heels, and ankle socks. She gracefully climbs the stairs to the upper pulpit then steps up on a small platform beside the console of the great organ. The audience shows their appreciation. She bows slightly, then silence. The organ whispers a short introduction and fifteen thousand hearts stand still. Into that awesome silence flows the most beautiful voice I have ever heard. Yes, she sings with her heart, and her soul as well as her voice; she pours her whole being into the song. When she is finished, the thunder of applause sends more thrills down the spine. Later she sings 'A Heart That's Free' and 'Chapel Bells.' - With each song she cast the same beautiful spell over the audience. It is very difficult to appear attractive while singing, but that rare gift is Miss Durbin's. even when she opened her mouth very wide to hit the high notes perfectly, she looked as pretty as ever."

Both of Deanna's first two films, Three Smart Girls and 100 Men and a Girl received Oscar nominations for "Best Picture," following the success of 100 Men and a Girl Deanna was invited to plant her hand and footprints in the forecourt of Graumann's Chinese Theater, and in 1939 she was awarded a special Oscar for "Bringing to the screen the spirit and personification of youth and as a juvenile player showing a high standard of ability and achievement," surely one of the quickest acknowledgements of superstardom in film history. She also enjoyed a concurrent success on radio. In 1937 the Radio Editors of America voted her "The Most Popular Radio Performer of the Year" for her appearances on the Eddie Cantor radio show Texaco Town, following the expiration of her contract with Cantor's show, Deanna was offered her own radio show but reportedly her parents turned down the offer because of her already over-crowded schedule. For those looking to check out her films for the first time, I would recommend starting with any of her first three "child star" vehicles (the third is Mad About Music), all of which, are delightful and extremely well-made star vehicles, but any of her first ten are well-worth checking out, as, in addition to displaying her considerable talent and charm, they also demonstrate producer Joe Pasternak's flair in easing her gradually into adult roles. Deanna was not only popular culture's first "Teen Idol," but she also was the first child star to make the transition to adult roles without losing her popularity, so this was no mean feat.

I too am an Opera as well as a movie fan, and enjoy when the two forms combine. I haven't looked at Mr. Wlaschin's book for some time but I recalled that I enjoyed doing so when I did. (I can't find a copy of it at my local library.) I also recall liking what he said about my favorite movie soprano, Deanna Durbin, and how her success was largely responsible for perpetuating operatic excerpts onscreen during the 1940s. Deanna also received a nice comment from current lyric soprano favorite Renee Flemming in her recent volume on singing. As far as filmizations of operas are concerned, I enjoyed the Zeferelli film of LA TRAVIATA with Theresa Stratas, Placido Domingo and Cornel MacNeil and the Jean Pierre Ponnelle version of LE NOZZE DI FIGARO with Hermann Prey and Mirella Freni, and several others. As for operatic moments on film, I like Fox's METROPOLITAN (1935) , with one of my favorite baritones, Lawrence Tibbett in the lead. Not only does it preserve Tibbett's performances of the "Largo al Factotum," "The Toreador Song" and "On The Road To Mandalay" (among others), but he gives a very natural and likable performance in the non-singing sections. I also like Rise Stevens's performances of the "Habanera" in GOING MY WAY and "Mon Coeur S'ouvre ta voix" in THE CHOCOLATE SOLDIER and Grace Moore's operatic excerpts in ONE NIGHT OF LOVE, among others, particularly the funny staging of the quartet from RIGOLETTO (with Moore singing the tenor line!) to make the landlady forget about collecting the rent. Eileen Farrell's vocals combined with Eleanor Parker's beauty and dramatics in the superior INTERRUPTED MELODY are also a favorite. I think Parker's miming job is perhaps thre finest I've ever seen by any non-singer in film history. According to Farrell, Parker suffered a brief nervous breakdown after the film was completed because she'd worked so hard on perfecting her miming technique, but the results certainly paid off. Opera and film are often a marvelous match. Best Regards, Markus

I've seen it before, but not for some time. Anna Maria Alberghetti is an illegal immigrant who finds some fame singing on a local television variety show and is helped in her bid to stay in this country by Rosemary Clooney, Laurtiz Melchior and some other performers. Clooney gets to sing a pretty silly song called "Lovely Weather For Ducks" (as well as her chart-topping "Come-On-a-My-House") and Anna Maria (I think) sings "Una Voce Poco Fa" from THE BARBER OF SEVILLE, among other songs.

I don't believe Professor Turk ever stated that MacDonald & Eddy couldn't stand each other, only that they were friendly offscreen, but not romantically involved. While I don't wish to engage in a debate on the merits of Professor Turk's book vs. Sharon Rich's (there was another thread begun a while back on which this topic was debated), I don't find Miss Rich's book to be very credible, nor do I understand why so many of Miss Rich's devotees seem to imply that it's essential that one accept an offscreen romantic liason between the pair in order to appreciate their onscreen work. Of course, you're perfectly free to disagree. To each his/her own. Hopefully Warners (or whoever releases the MGM library of classic films) will get around to releasing DVDs of the MacDonald/Eddy ouvre. I'm sure the many fans who have replied to these and other threads on their work would be delighted.

Although my favorite movie soprano is Deanna Durbin, I'm a big fan of Jane Powell's and had the great pleasure of meeting her once and chatting with her briefly. She was (and I'm sure still is) a charming and delightful lady. My favorite film of hers (and the one in which I think she gives her best performance) is SEVEN BRIDES FOR SEVEN BROTHERS. I also enjoy ROYAL WEDDING and some of her teenaged roles such as HOLIDAY IN MEXICO, LUXURY LINER and A DATE WITH JUDY. I find it interesting that her adolescent screen image is often described as the same sort of "Little Miss Fixit" roles Deanna Durbin played. It seems to me that in most of her "teen" roles the opposite is true. Unlike Deanna, whose characters were usually perceptive enough to identify a problem and devise a solution to it only to run into problems when the adults in her circle refused to take her seriously, I think Jane usually played a "Little Miss Cause It," whose misunderstandings and misinterpretations of another character(s) motives/situations CAUSE problems rather than solve them. Has anyone else noticed this? In any case Jane was a delightful and versatile performer who I think has been very underrated for many years. The recordings she made for Columbia while in her teens, which include several songs she never sang on film (and several she did) are charming and well worth checking out. Here's wishing Jane a wonderful 77th birthday! She's not only a real trouper, but a real survivor who's earned the happiness she's enjoyed in her marriage to Dick Moore over the past decade plus.

, I just find it odd that people > who are not devout fans and just looking for more > information regarding the books and the duo are being > labeled with those terms. Well said, Lzcutter: Personally, I don't consider myself either a "Saint" or a "Sinner" where MacDonald & Eddy are concerned, because, quite honestly, my devotion to them is not that fervent or all-encompassing. I certainly enjoy their films and admire and appreciate their talents and acheivements. That said, I think there is some validity to such critical assessments of Nelson Eddy's screen image as, at times, "not unlike that of a cold suet pudding." I also endorse Noel Coward's assessment of Jeanette's and Nelson's performances in the film version of his operetta BITTERSWEET as akin to "watching the romance between an out-of-control rocking horse (Jeanette) and a rawhide suitcase (Nelson)." At best, these terms "Saints" and "Sinners" are terms of extremes, which seem to reflect the unquestioning and vehement fervor with which Miss Rich's adherents endorse her claims and seemingly seek to vilify/denounce all other interpretations. I am intrigued by the determined and resolute certainty with which Miss Rich's fans endorse her claims given the several potentially questionable aspects of her research, including, but not limited to, the severe stroke suffered by Blossom Rock a few years before Miss Rich met her, the manner in which Miss Rich acquired the unpublished manuscript allegedly written by Jeanette upon which she, in part, based her research, the legal implications involved in Miss Rich's having published this manuscript (and reportedly trumpeted its' acquisition prior to publishing the manuscript), and the general lack of interest her work seems to have inspired in major literary, film, music and cutural circles. While I do find such unquestioning devotion to Miss Rich's theses admirable, at least in some respects, some objective information/evidence on the issues that I and others have raised would be most appreciated.

No one prints quotes > from living persons without their consent or > lawsuits would certainly ensue. After coming across this phrase several times in previous posts to this thread, I would respectfully request that anyone who is not a practicing attorney (or who may be a practicing attorney whose practice does not include litigation and/or trial work), refrain from ascribing to it the sort of "off the cuff" fecklessness and certainty with which one would describe the returning of a damanged bottle of jelly to one's local supermarket. As an attonrey whose practice does involve both trial work and litigation, I want to assure one and all that the initiation and pursuit of a lawsuit is, almost without exception, an emotionally frustrating, exhausting, bewildering and prohibitively expensive undertaking, not only for those involved (including the attorney) but also their families, loved ones, friends and associates. Moreover, much more often than not, due to the legal, moral and financial practicalities involved, lawsuits most often end with an agreed-upon settlement, with neither party acknowledging liability, before the trial stage. Those who do choose to pursue a lawsuit to the end of the process (jury trial/appeal(s)) often find themselves not only receiving an undesireable verdict, but, on occasion, facing bankruptcy, unemployment and divorce as a consequence of doing so. It is by no means accurate (and, in fact, borders on the completely fanciful) that "lawsuits would certainly ensue" as a consequence of potentially defamatory, libelous, slanderous statements being made by another party. Pick up any copy of your favorite supermarket "tabloids," or watch the broadcasting equivalent of same for a week, and notice how many potentially libelous, slanderous statements are made in them without the object of these commentaries issuing anything more than a "firm denial" (if not ignoring them completely) and you'll see immediately what I mean. For those looking for a more concrete example, try checking out Mel Torme's volume THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RAINBOW WITH JUDY GARLAND ON THE DAWN PATROL, which contains Torme's impressions of what it was like to work with the emotionally erratic Garland on her 1963 television series and Steven Coyne Sanders' 20 years later analysis of that series, RAINBOW'S END. Torme's book presents him as one of many comrades united in friendship (and frustration) against an often out-of-control, self-absorbed "Diva." Coyne Sanders' book, on the other hand, contains denouncements of Torme's allegations from many co-workers he describes as friends and associates, including Garland's hairdresser, Orval Paine, who openly states that Torme "lied" in citing him as his source that Garland secretly ordered the discharge of her first production staff and then poor-mouthed her "bewilderment" to the press. There are also claims, in one book, the other, or both, potentially slandering such well-known performers as June Allyson (descrbed as "a drunk" in both books) and Ray Bolger (who, Coyne Sanders alleged, "flashed" guest star Jane Powell). I haven't read either of these books for several years, but I'm sure one could find many, many other potentially litigious comments, assertions, averrments and conclusions, yet, to my knowledge, no lawsuits have been filed against either text. More often than not, potentially libelous/slanderous statements go unchallenged by the object of these claims, or seldom proceed beyond the "denial/threat of lawsuit" stage. In the case of the sort of anti-defamatory suit Miss Rich's book would inspire, another unwelcome aspect of initiating a lawsuit(s) would be the potentially unwelcome and undeserved publicity the initiation of such an action would give to the book/article/interview in question. So, for example, while it's possible that Gene Raymond and others potentially defamed in Miss Rich's book may have chosen not to initiate a lawsuit because they feared exposure from her "evidence," it is equally possible, if not even more probable, that they simply chose to ignore her claims in anticipation that her book would excite little attention outside of the interest of partisan groups within the Mac/Eddy fan base. I must say that from what little research I've done on this issue, in this case, that approach seems to have worked. Aside from the sort of highly emotional pronouncements made by fans of Miss Rich's book, such as some of the posts to this thread, her book seems to have been almost completely ignored by the general, "objective" literary and popular culture intelligentsia. However, as I don't maintain that my "research" into this issue has been definitive by any means, I would welcome any information supporters of Miss Rich may be able to provide on this issue, particularly citations to major film, music, cultural, biographical periodicals, newspapers, etc. that have lauded Miss Rich's efforts. As far as the citation of Blossom Rock as a viable source of information for Miss Rich's book, the problem here is that Miss Rock suffered a severe stroke a few years before Miss Rich met her, and, rightly or wrongly, those who do not ascribe to Miss Rich's interpretation of the MacDonald/Eddy legacy, have challenged whether Miss Rock (who was also fairly elderly at the time) was in possession of her faculties at the time Miss Rich "interviewed" her, and whether Miss Rich may have exerted "undue influence" on Miss Rock in obtaining her "information." I am not passing judgement on whether these "anti-Rich" partisans are right or wrong in their allegations, but it is yet another issue which Miss Rich either must address definitively (if she has not done so already), or one with which she must be prepared to live with as an enduring source of controversy and scepticism from naysayers and more objective commentators on her work and the film, music, popular culture scene.

You're welcome, Stargzn: I like Doris, too. At least, I like her in some of her films and I like her as singer.That's why I find these later films/performances less enjoyable. I wouldn't be surprised if she was somewhat vain, given the industry she worked in. And let's face it, many of these later films made a mint, and her television series ran for 5 years until she decided to end it, so she must have done something right. Irene Dunne was really terrific! Drama, comedy, musicals...she really could do it all, and her playing was so intelligent and incisive. I remember reading a comment from her that she found the mother in LIFE WITH FATHER a difficult part to play because the character was so "silly," but you'd never know it from the performance she gave. She even makes that crazy bookkeeping system of "Mrs. Day's" seem logical. I can understand why William Powell was so confused!

I don't know how the issue was dealt with in reviews of Doris's movies, but by the time of her late 1960s television series it was much commented upon with critics like Rex Reed asking: "Doris is neither old nor ugly, so why does she have the blurriest close-ups of any performer, male, female, or animal, in screen history and why is she consistently attired in frightful wigs and outlandish costumes which wouldn't even look attractive on the 20+ years younger women she's clearly trying to emulate?" As you can tell, I'm very bothered by these fuzzy/satiny close-ups in Doris's late movies as well. While it's true that soft-focus was sometimes used for other actresses, I can't think of another screen performer, except perhaps walking cinematic corpse Lucille Ball in 1974's MAME, who made this device such an overwhelming and omnipresent essential aspect of her screen image. My sisters used to say of her appearance in THE DORIS DAY SHOW, that she looks as if she was shot with a lens covered with a Vaseline soaked nylon stocking and I think there's a lot of truth in that. As this "look" continued throughout Day's series and she assumed total control over every aspect of it by the middle of the first season, I believe it was her decision to be photographed in this satiny/blurry manner. Long before Doris ventured into television producer Joe Pasternak commented: "She thinks she doesn't get old. She said her cameraman had made her look old. She wanted me to fire him." She clearly was much more concerned about her onscreen appearance (and potentially much more vain) than her oft-commented "I never tried to hide my freckles" fecklessness suggests. Then again, I'm also very bothered by Day's wardrobes and hairstyles in these films, which strike me as outrageously over-the-top and age-inappprorpriate for an actress hovering around 40. When one combines her appearance with her often petulant, overwrought, acting and the silly sitcom-esque scripts of her later films in this cyle, it's easy to see why she quickly became the butt of comics throughout the entertainment industry for her battles to defend her virtue well into encroaching middle age. For these reasons, other than PILLOW TALK, in which I think she was fairly stylishly attired in a reasonably witty and age-appropriate scenario, I tend to avoid her films in this series (not to mention her later TV series) like the proverbial plague. To give Doris (and fans of these films) their due, I will readily acknowledge they were enormously popular durnng their day, turning her into not only a Top Ten Box Office attraction for several years, but, as many commentators have pointed out, perhaps the most successful screen star of those who came to prominence in the immediate post-World War II era, so they obviously pleased audiences at the time. However, it's also these films more than any others she'd done, that cemented her now ossified pop culture image as what she later called, "America's La Di Da Virgin." This was not only, as one critic noted, a somewhat "cruel fate for the cheery heroine of her early Warner Bros. musicals," but an unfortunate fate for the talented performer of such admirable films as CALAMITY JANE, I'LL SEE YOU IN MY DREAMS, and LOVE ME OR LEAVE ME, among others. People almost never do it, but I think it's interesting to compare Doris's later career with that of the wonderfully versatile and underrated Irene Dunne. Twenty years before PILLOW TALK, Dunne also began to explore the comedic film genre as she neared 40. Unlike Doris, Dunne, whose career continued for another decade-plus until she chose to retire, Dunne never seemed to rely on blatant soft-focus and other lighting and camera tricks to make her seem more attractive onscreen. Even in a film like I REMEMBER MAMA, in which Dunne was almost 50, the only makeup trick employed was the application of some additional latex to give the too-young-looking Irene the appropriate look of a Norwegian matron. Dunne's films and performances throughout this period are also, far more subtle, mature, stylish, witty and unselfconciously charming than the shrieky, shrill, grating, wind-up doll sitcom moves Day displayed in her synthetic cinematic confections.

Okay, mercifully, I've located a copy of HOLLYWOOD DIVA, so hopefully I can be a bit more specific in my postings and not have to rely exclusively on memory: > I believe one question was "How could Sharon Rich > legally publish a manuscript that Jeanette wrote? > Well, according to Turk, Jeanette originally hired > several ghost or cowriters before she decided to go > it alone. Ms.Rich learned that one of these writers > kept the manuscript she worked on--Sharon obtained it > and published it. The manuscript was of course typed, > but all the corrections were made in Jeanette's own > handwriting. I still find this aspect of Rich's alleged "research" troubling. Assuming it's true, it still seems likely that she published someone else's manuscript when she had no legal, moral, or ethical right to do so. A quote from Jeanette in Turk's book at least raises the issue that Jeanette declined to write a more salacious manuscript than the one she'd submitted and I see no legal basis for Rich to have the authority to do so without the approval of Jeanette, Gene Raymond or Jeanette's estate. If Miss Rich does have some proper legal basis for doing so, I'd be very interested in hearing what it is, if anyone has any information on this subject and can cite authority for that information. As in the case of the Letters of Irving > Stone, where all the letters were in Jeanette's > handwriting. Unless, Ms Rich is a master forger--I'm > sure you're aware she has been called worse--they are > indeed authentic. Have the letters ever been authenticated? And by whom? It's one thing to say the letters are Jeanette's, it's quite another to prove that they are. I'm not saying Miss Rich hasn't done so, but, if she has, I'd like to know how and when she did so (e.g., what authorities she used to authenticate them). Also as I noted in my earlier post, what evidence has she offered, if any, that in publishing these letters, she wasn't going against Jeanette's wishes in doing so? Thanks for any help you can offer on this point. As for Turk turning down any > manuscript because Gene refuted its accuracy or > veracity hmm instant fox in henhouse image. Who now > has rights to the rest of the manuscripts assuming > they were not burned as were most of Nelson's > personal papers and letters?(straight out of Gail > Lulay's book on Ann, uh Nelson). I might guess > they're with her fan club officers. These two books, > are probably still available on Ms. Rich's site--try > google. Did someone mention Turk's turning down a manuscript because Gene Raymond refuted its' accuracy? > Oh, some seem to believe Nelson and Jeanette did not > try to unite in any more films. They each sought out > projects, Nelson even wrote a couple of scripts. They > were not offered anything they liked. But there was > one project that Jeanette even invested her own money > in (steady, this is from Turk's book, also) She > arranged a tenative deal with David Rose for a > MacEddy film to be shot in England.Nelson wasn't > enthused about the script, then turned it down when > he learned Jeanette was the main investor. Jeanette > told a friend :"I was so damned mad at such an > infantile attitude that I was disgusted with the > whole thing.Being practical, like most women, I have > no pride where my career is concerned, an I think > Nelson has been influenced by either his own male ego > or by Ann's jealousy all these years." Why was Ann > jealous of Jeanette?? Turk also quotes Eddy expressing other reasons for his reluctance to make the film, including his opinion that, if the script were any good " we wouldn't HAVE to go to England, but could do it right here in Hollywood!" In so stating, it appears that Eddy was acknowledging the general lack of interest in the mid-late 1940s Hollywood with the sort of period operettas that were Mac/Eddy's bread and butter. Show me another studio during this time that promoted a classically-trained semi-operatic singing team along the lines of MacDonald & Eddy? Not Paramount. Not Warners. Not Universal. Not RKO. True, there were many operatic singers were quite popular during this period (e.g., Kathryn Grayson, Gloria Jean, Susanna Foster, Ann Blyth, etc.) but these singers owed their screen opportunities to studio efforts to discover another Deanna Durbin, not another Jeanette MacDonald. The sort of films in which these performers appeared were, almost without exception (e.g., Warners' 1943 version of THE DESERT SONG with Dennis Morgan and Manning), constructed along the lines of the enormously popular "comedies/dramas with music" that Durbin first popularized rather than a re-imagining of the MacDonald/Eddy filmed operettas. Indeed, MGM itself kept several "mature" operatic vocalists of MacDonald's age (e.g. Ilona Massey, Marta Eggerth, etc.) around but they only made "specialty" appearances in films that spotlighted other performers more heavily, such as 1946's HOLIDAY IN MEXIDO in which MGM's latest candidate in the Durbin sweepstakes, Jane Powell (billed as "Your New Young Singing Star!"), had the primary female role while Massey was relegated to one or two songs and a few lines of dialogue opposite Powell's screen father, Walter Pidgeon. And who says that Ann Eddy was specifically jealous of Jeanette? All Jeanette says is that Mrs. Eddy was jealous, as one of equally probable reasons (in her opinion) that Nelson rejected the film offer. She doesn't elaborate or say the cause. She may have been jealous of Nelson's career in general and all the actresses he appeared opposite, not only Jeanette. She also doesn't state whether Mrs. Eddy's jealousy was well-founded. > And here is something all Jeanette and Nelson fans > have wondered about.. > Jeanette was on to this 10 years before her death. > She wrote a letter to Hedd Hopper in Oct. 1954 in > which she spoke of how much her public wanted to see > her reunited with Nelson in films. She continued > "Didn't it seem strange to you that in the MGM > anniversary telecast on the Ed Sullivan show, there > was not one clip of a MacEddy film. Wasn't it also > strange that in MGM's Deep IN My Heart, they > abandoned the idea of having me and Nelson in a > sequence, settling on using a clip from a film, then > skipping the whole idea? I know years ago, a sort of > hands off policy > was established through subtle propaganda, and that > undoubtedly settled the question of our being used by > other studios!" Jeanette was one wise lady! Between > Mayer's pull with other studios and Ann Eddy's > threats; there would be no more films together. Forgive me, but this theory doesn't seem to have any validity at all. The excerpt you cite is included by Turk in reference to a comment Jeanette made about feeling betrayed by "the new studio regimes." By the time DEEP IN MY HEART was made (1954), L. B. Mayer's stewardship of MGM had been at an end (when he was forced out by the New York office) for over three years, and several years before that, Mayer's place in the studio hierarchy had been assumed by Dore Scharey, who preferred hard-hitting "message" films such as BATTLEGROUND to musical productions. It is for this reason, Turk notes, that producer Joe Pasternak was unable to produce a vehicle (EMISSARY FROM BRAZIL) in which he hoped to re-team MacDonald & Eddy. Jeanette's not blaming Mayer here, but his successors, and the general change in public taste away from the sort of films Jeanette and Nelson made. Something else to think about: If Jeanette truly loathed Mayer, why did she volunteer to sing at his funeral? And why did she speak so affectionately of him to reporters? Not only was the man no longer a "player" in Hollywood (and hadn't been for more than half a decade) he was dead! By the late 1940s, Mayer could barely keep his own job. By the early 1950s, he was gone from MGM and by the late 1950s, he was dead, so what was there to "fear" from re-teaming Jeanette and Nelson? The more likely scenario seems to be that Dore Schary and other studio heads of the postwar era felt that MacDonald and Eddy (who were both then in their 50s) were screen anachronisms, who were both too old for the screen and whose musical styles were perceived to have gone out of fashion. Perhaps the studio heads were wrong, but I think you're equally wrong to blame Mayer for it based on such insubstantial and ephemeral "evidence" as Jeanette's comments in this quote provide.

Hi JackieM: > Well, by dogie, it made it. Well, by dogie, I didn't...I just tried to post a reply and it disappeard, but I'll give it another shot. On the question of > whether Jeanette really wanted the mmanuscript > published, Turk though she did. He wrote: MacDonald > hoped the book would persuade readers "I was not the > angelic creature, that I seemingly represent to a > certain group of people". I may be mistaken about this, but doesn't Sharon Rich claim that she has a different manuscript from the one Professor Turk allegedly used for his book? And that her manuscript was Jeanette's "true" memoir? As far as Jeanette's comment regarding her image is concerned, I see little differene between the frustrations she expresses here and that expressed by practically every single screen actress with a virtuous/Girl Next Door image from Mary Pickford, Deanna Durbin and Judy Garland, to Doris Day, Elizabeth Taylor, Natalie Wood, Sandra Dee, Sandra Bullock and Meg Ryan. Turk continues: The > manuscript candidly described her romance > entanglements with Jack Ohmeis and Ernst Lubitsch. > However there were 2 men she did not list: Irving > Stone a Business man she had an affair with during > the 20's. He kept all her letters, and upon his > death, they were discovered. He was married, but > separated at the time. She also did not list Nelson > Eddy, who was also married. I don't think Turk's biography mentions that Jeanette did not include references to romances with Eddy and Stone in her proposed memoir, does it? From the way you've cited them here, it sounds as if he does. Also, assuming Jeanette did have romantic liasons with Stone and Eddy yet elected not to include references to them in drafts of her memoir, it seems likely that she wished to keep this aspect of her life completely private. Therefore, wouldn't Miss Rich's making them public be considered a disregard for Jeanette's feelings on the matter? Also, I agree that if Miss Rich discovered the unpublished manuscript from one of Jeanette's ghostwriters and published it without the estate's approval, it seems likely that she, in effect, stole it, and published it without authority to do so. It was Jeanette's life story, not the co-writer's. Perhaps Jeanette didn't secure all the proper legal formalities to protect her work, but it still may be viewed as a betrayal of "trust" on Miss Rich's part and, perhaps, a criminal action. > On the question of Sharon Rich appearing before a > Broadcast forum where her claims and resource > material were subjected to scrutiny and questions by > film and music scholars. > I have no idea. Was Prof. Turk subjected to any thing > like this? I had two reasons for asking this question concerning Miss Rich's book: 1. Miss Rich's book presents a far more "radical"/revisionist account of the lives and legacies of MacDonald & Eddy: and 2. Despite the innately "sensationalistic" aspects of Miss Rich's interpretation of their lives (e.g., emotional breakdowns, physical abuse, illegal abortions, spiteful spouses, etc.) her book seems to have attracted little, if any, interest whatsoever, from major literary periodicals and publications, whether in the general "book review" variety or those specifically devoted to films, music. Far less attention, in fact, than Professor Turk's book has, so I was curious to know whether she has ever had her claims/allegations authenticated in any manner, such as a talk show forum, etc. > I have a few questions also. Why were so many > pictures of Gene Raymond featured in the book, in > fact, his was the last photo shown; with such > admirable captions i.e.Gene Raymond--a stunning, > Hollywood newcomer and Gene Raymond was a dashing > presence, well into his golden years? I don't see anything clandestine or puzzling here. Prof. Turk makes it clear that Mr. Raymond was one of the sources who offered him assistance in writing his book, and, since Prof. Turk's interpretation is that Raymond and MacDonald enjoyed a happy and enduring marriage, I see nothing wrong with his acknowledging such to be the case. As his picture of the elder Raymond clearly shows, Raymond was a very handsome man well into his later years. > And why did Turk make such use of rumors, gossip and > inuendo to describe for instance, Nelson Eddy. Many > reading his book might assume Nelson was: > Homosexual, Impotent, and sterile. Turk also reported > than the only profound relationship Nelson had was > with his mother. What? Like all decent biographers, Turk reported the material he found on his subject(s), which he found reliable. For example, he openly acknowledged in his book that the reports of Eddy being homosexual were "rumors" based on his unwillingness to play the "Swinging Celebrity Bachelor" for the cameras when he first arrived in Hollywood. It was during this "novice" period, and for the same reason, and not through Eddy's lifetime, Turk states, that Eddy's most profound relationship was with his mother. As I recall, Turk does quote Eddy's half-sister as stating that he was sterile due to a childhood fall > And on Lotta Lehman who helped Jeanette with her > singing. "MacDonald seemed to trigger in the great > Lehman the kind of schoolgirl crush, Harlow had > professed toward Jeanette 8 years earlier (?) Equally > congenial was Emily Wentz (J's secretary) and > Lehman's live in companion, Frances Holden." What? > What? I don't recall this passage taking on the sexual dimensions to which you've alluded, and while I would need to dig out my copy of HOLLYWOOD DIVA, I believe you've also omitted a few key passages from it. As I recall, this passage only described the close friendship enjoyed by these women at a time (World War II) when they were either widowed (Lehmann) or separated from their husbands, including Jeanette from Raymond. As I recall, Turk cites the outside shared interests of MacDonald and Lehmann (e.g., sports, pets, exercise, etc.) to further illuminate the basis for this friendship, but nothing in his writings, whether his own opinion or excerpts from Lehmann's letters, indicate a sexual liason between Jeanette, Lehmann, or the other two women.

Sorry for the delay, but here are some of the comments on Deanna from noted admirers to which I alluded in my last post: Here are some of the quoted comments on Deanna Durbin to which I alluded earlier: "The modern Jenny Lind" Lawrence Tibbett; "That little girl is a better singer than I am!" Grace Moore; "I was always mad about Deanna. I admired her work enormously." Gracie Fields; When she sings there is no sense of the footlights about it. She sings for music, not for show. She isn?t one of those sopranos who expect the audience to pay out nn the high notes. Her singing, which must have been magnificently taught her, is still, praise heaven, cool, clean and scholarly. ? C. A. LEJEUNE, 1939; "Durbin was phenomenal. Possessed of a glorious operatic voice, she could and did sing anything put in front of her to perfection." Mel Torme; "Durbin's opera has a confidence that one finds lacking in the singing of the coeval Kathryn Grayson and Jane Powell, and her 'pop' is pleasurable." Ethan Morrden; "[i thought Deanna] was a wonderful singer with a fine voice and a beautiful actress." Leopold Stokowski; Stokowski was in awe of her talent [during the production of 100 MEN AND A GIRL], but she treated him like a benign older brother. Joe Pasternak; "She's arguably the finest young soprano the moves ever produced. Far better than the MacDonalds, Powells and Graysons, in my opinion." Judy Garland scholar, John Fricke; "We used to make fun of her at MGM schoolhouse. Maybe because we were a little jealous. Let's face it, she could sing the high, fancy stuff beautifully. When it came to belting it out, she was right up there with the rest of us." Judy Garland; "Deanna Durbin-there was something so pure in her singing. It was magical. I heard some of her records when I was about ten. It was magical and I began to sing her repertory myself, things like ?My Own, Let Me Call You My Own.' " Dame Elly Ameling, citing Deanna as her first and most important early musical influence; "She helped me in my discovery of myself. You have no idea of the smelly old movie houses I patronized to see Deanna Durbin. I tried to create the very best in my music, to try and recreate, to approach her purity." Renowned Russian Cellist/Conductor Mstislav Rostropovich; "She's probably one of the all-time great singers." Dick Haymes "Deanna: I want you to know that I was going to sing 'More and More' on my radio show tonight, but after hearing you do it, I dropped it like a hot potato. Lady, there's no way I can compete with you!" Frank Sinatra "Durbin's sweet voice and sound musical instincts take on particular value when she is compared to her 1940s counterparts, the "legit" sopranos Jane Powell and Kathryn Garyson. Like [Judy] Garland, Deanna Durbin was also a very talented actress with an individual recognizable style. That style, related to her musical discipline, is perceived in her fluent, rapid-fire, yet utterly clear delivery of dialogue, in a diction with irresistible impulse and energy, in irony that never smacks of brattishness, but rather, of real intelligence, and in a warmth of personality that echoes her singing/speaking voice." Charles Affron

When was the radio interview? (Date?, Station?, Program?) Is it available for fans to listen to? Has Miss Rich ever made her research available for critical perusal/review? Has Miss Rich ever appeared on a broadcasting forum where her claims were subjected to scrutiny, questioning, commentary by film and music scholars knowledgeable on the MacDonald/Eddy legacy? If so, are there tapes/records of these forums? Assuming that Jeanette did work on several manuscripts, how did Miss Rich get ahold of it, and what evidence has Miss Rich offered that the manuscript she used as the basis for her research was the "true" one? From what you've written, it sounds as if Jeanette originally wrote a more detached manuscript but amped up the salacious aspects of it in response to the editor's criticism, which would make me question its;' veracity. What evidence has she offered that Jeanette (who apparently never published this manuscript) wanted to have it published? What evidence is there that Professor Turk only saw "one" of the manuscripts? Is it possible he saw more than one one of them, including the one Miss Rich used, and found them, in some respects, lacking in accuracy or veracity? Thanks in advance for any information you may be able to provide.

Personally, the fact that J & N continued in show business means little or nothing to me. As I said before, many, many contemporaries of J & N also continued in show business and also, according to more recent allegations, engaged in private behavior, which, if brought up in Court could have ruined their careers/lives on a level comparable to that which Miss Rich alleges in her book would have happened to J & N. Moreover, unlike J & N, many of these contemporaries continued to work steadily in the film industry for decades after J & N abandoned it. While the two did continue to work in the entertainment industry, and both made occasional film appearances in the mid-late 1940s, to all intents and purposes, their days as cinematic superstars were over when I MARRIED AN ANGEL wrapped filming. For instance, Nelson's 1943 appearance in Universal's PHANTOM OF THE OPERA was much more a "star vehicle" for new Universal contract player Susanna Foster than it was for Nelson Eddy, and Jeanette's late 1940s appearances in THREE DARING DAUGHTERS and THE SUN COMES UP, saw her sharing screen time with co-stars Jane Powell in the former and Lassie in the latter in a manner that never would have occurred in the salad days of her film stardom. Nor can I recall ever finding any indication that any other studios were eager to craft a co-starring vehicle for the pair. The fact that no studios apparently did so, nor that the public continued to press for their pairing onscreen in a manner that resulted in the two making another film following their departures from MGM strongly suggests that the two had both enjoyed their cinematic day in the sun and had moved into other non-cinematic venues in their careers. And logically, they should have. Both were forty-ish by the time I MARRIED AN ANGEL went into production, far too old to continue playing impetuous young lovers even with the best makeup department in the world to back them up. Also, from what I can recall, according to all sources I've seen on J & N, both were dedicated vocalists first and film stars second Neither regarded their film careers as the apex of their performing ambitions. MacDonald made no secret of her longstanding ambition to perform grand opera throughout her film career at Paramount and MGM, and Eddy, even more than MacDonald, viewed film solely as a means to increase his visibility and marketabilty as a radio and recording artist and recitalist. Significantly, both J & N continued to concertize, record and appear on radio (a medium that was verboten to many musical film stars) and made certain that these options were given primacy in any contracts they had with the studio throughout their tenures with MGM. Based on his behavior toward other stars who opposed him, I believe there's a good deal of objective evidence to refute Miss Rich's claims that Louis B. Mayer's influence concerning J & N was all-powerful and all-pervasive throughout the entertainment industry, and that he deliberately sabotaged the careers of promising, money-making contract players to satisfy his own bruised ego. Broadway star Gene Kelly told Mayer off in no uncertain terms, and in far from a gentlemanly manner, when Mayer broke his promise to Kelly that Kelly would not be required to make a screen test for the studio. But while, according to many reports, this kept the two as distant co-workers throughout Mayer's stewardship at Metro, it didn't prevent Mayer from approving choice film projects for Kelly, including his co-starring debut opposite budding superstar Judy Garland in FOR ME AND MY GAL and choice roles in top dramatic vehicles such as THE CROSS OF LORRAINE. Young stars such as Judy Garland, Kathryn Grayson, and June Allyson, all ignored Mayer's edicts to refuse marriage proposals from older and/or unknown men just as their careers were taking off, yet Mayer continued to promote and build the careers of these popular performers. Even in a case where Mayer has been accused of dashing the screen hopes of a talented performer, his influence did not extend to other venues of entertainment. For example, it has been rumored that popular baritone vocalist Perry Como "ruined" his chances for a screen career by swearing at Mayer. Even if this allegation is accurate, this did not prevent Como from becoming one of the major recording artists in American popular music over the next three decades, enjoying remarkably enduring and almost unparallelled success in recordings, radio and television despite Mayer's animosity. Como contemporary Frank Sinatra also allegeldy earned Mayer's enmity by making an off-color allusion to Mayer's clandestine relationship with singer Ginny Simms, yet this didn't prevent Sinatra from working at other studios or from re-asserting his status as a top recording artist once he had developed a more mature singing style from his "bobby soxer teen idol" days. Also, I think it unfair to allege that Professor Turk spent only "a few months" on his biography of MacDonald, as it perhaps is to accept that Miss Rich, who, I don't believe has ever made her extensive research on the pair available for public/critical perusal spent "20 years" on hers. I must admit that I find it puzzling that so few major publications have bothered to review or comment upon Miss Rich's works. Perhaps I'm mistaken on this and someone can point me to commentary on her projects by major publications such as THE NEW Y0RK TIMES, THE BOSTON GLOBE, THE WASHINGTON POST, OPERA NEWS and OPERA QUARTERLY, among many others, all of which I think did comment on Professor Turk's work. From what I've seen the only well-known publications to consider Miss Rich's research and scholarship are THE KIRKUS REVIEWS and PUBLISHER'S WEEKLY. I'd be interested in people's thoughts as to why she's been largely ignored by the major publications of the literary, artistic and biographical intelligentsia. Finally, I would be most interested to have an opportunity to review the many other books and other published sources cited by a previous poster which prove that Gene Raymond was homosexual, did not love his wife, and kept her trapped in a loveless marriage to cover his own clandestine sexual proclivities. Thanking you all in advance for any assistance you may be able to provide on these issues.

I too am a great opera fan and although she was the last one whose work I saw and heard, Deanna Durbin is my favorite, and, in my opinion, the best of the movie "Teen Sopranos," with Jane Powell my second choice. While I won't deny that the fourteen year-old Deanna's vocalism in 100 MEN AND A GIRL, may not have been up to that of the mature Joan Sutherland or Leontyne Price, as a voice and a vocalist I'd place Durbin ahead of any of filmdom's other "Teen Sopranos." While I like and admire them all and have enjoyed their films, the vocalism of the majority of the other "Teen Sopranos," is characterized by an omnipresent and uncertain vibrato which, despite their innate charm, gives much of their singing a somewhat arch, mannered and nervous quality, which seems to reflect the innately "chilly" quality of their voices, especially Kathryn Grayson's with her high-flying florid coloratura runs. Powell does have a nice warm lower register, but, though they could suggest warmth when it was called for, neither of these vocalists, nor the high flying Susanna Foster, have what I would consider innately warm sounds/voices, certainly not on the level of Deanna Durbin's. Aside from the more sedate Ann Blyth, whose voice I believe was lighter than Deanna's, Durbin's firm rich warm lyric soprano and the ease with which she deployed it, stands out as the most evenly produced and innately warm instrument of all the major movie sopranos of her era, including such adult candidates as Jeanette MacDonald and Irene Dunne. Wonderfully talented vocalists all, but Durbin was in a class by herself as the finest vocalist and voice of the lot, in my opinion. Also, while like all performers, each one has her adherents and detractors, to give Deanna her due, in the extensive research I've done into the "Teen Soprano" genre, she is far and away the most critically admired and influential vocalist of the lot. From opera critic and pop culture historian Ethan Mordden ("Durbin's opera has a confidence that one finds lacking in the singing of the coeval Kathryn Grayson and Jane Powell") to film historian and music critic Charles Affron ("Durbin's sweet voice and sound musical instincts take on particular value when she is compared to her 1940s counterparts: the "legit" sopranos Jane Powell and Kathryn Grayson.") and film historians such as David Shipman and William K. Everson and Judy Garland afficianado John Fricke, to the admiring comments of contemporaries including Grace Moore, Gracie Fields, Lawrence Tibbett, Leopold Stokowski, Frank Sinatra, Dick Haymes and Eddie Cantor, to appreciative commentary from adherents influenced by her vocalism including Dame Joan Sutherland (who told me when I saw her after one of her last concerts that she thought Durbin was "the best young movie soprano in film history, bar none"), Dame Elly Ameling, Russian cellist/conductor Mstislav Rostropovich, jazz icon Mel Torme and jazz vocalist Marueen McGovern, Durbin is easily the most admired and influential singer/actress of all of filmdom's "Teen Sopranos." Also, while I have come across many noted vocalists and musicians who readily acknowledge the major impact Durbin's vocalism had on them, I have not had similar success in reviewing the critical legacies of Jane Powell, Kathryn Grayson and the other "Teen Sopranos." While I have come across admiring commentaries on their professionalism, and a few admiring comments on Grayson's vocals from co-workers like June Allyson, I have yet to come across any major musicians or singers who cite either vocalist as a vocal ideal/enduring influence such as I have many times over with Deanna Durbin. While I've seen a few flattering write-ups on Grayson and Powell's singing, by and large they seem to be much less critically admired as singers and actresses than Deanna. If anyone has seen any commentary by influential singers/musicians who were influenced by the vocalism of Grayson, Powell, Jean, Foster, etc. I would be very much interested in seeing it and would appreciate anyone directing me to any sources you may have for these comments.

I think it's supposed to be shown again in late March, as part of TCM's "Syncopation Station" series of musicals on Sunday mornings, but I'm not sure of the exact date. You should try to see the whole thing. I think you'll enjoy it. The "unemployed musician thing" refers to Adolph Menjou and his musican friends, all of whom have been out of work for several years due to the Depression, Deanna Durbin plays Menjou's daughter and she's inspired to urge Menjou to form an orchestra with his friends after she returns a purse to flighty and wealthy Alice Brady. Brady promises to book the orchestra on a radio show her husband, Eugene Pallette, sponsors once Deanna gets the musicians together. Brady, who's giving a lavish cocktail party at the time, is joking, but for understandable reasons, Deanna takes her seriously and sets off to rally the musicians. Later, when Pallette finds out about his wife's promise, he refuses to honor it until they can find a celebrity (a great singer, or a great conductor, etc.) who will inspire listeners to tune in, prompting Deanna to seek help from Leopold Stokowski.

I must say, although it's been some time since I read the books by Rich and Turk, I don't understand why, if they were so much in love, MacDonald and Eddy couldn't just dump their respective spouses and get divorced either, especially as, at least according to Sharon Rich, the public wanted them to get together offscreen as well as onscreen. Divorce may not have been as prevalent back then as it is now, but it certainly wasn't unheard of. Contemporaries of MacDonald and Eddy's like Joan Crawford, Ginger Rogers,Clark Gable, Alice Faye, Betty Grable, and Cary Grant, were among the many, many celebrities of the time who got divorced and remarried without it hurting their popularity or professional standing, and unlike Jeanette and Nelson, whose film careers were basically over when they left MGM, these stars continued in the studio system for several years after their marriages crumbled and they found other partners. Nor did divorce hurt the professional careers of former child stars like Deanna Durbin, Judy Garland, Natalie Wood or Elizabeth Taylor (if anything divorce gave Taylor's career a boost), audeinces had a much more proprietary interest in these younger stars than they did in Jeanette and Nelson. I also find it difficult to believe that Louis B.Mayer deliberately sabotaged their careers at MGM because Jeanette spurned his advances. Given the quality of the vehicles that MGM gave Eddy throughout his career with the studio, from his first leading role in NAUGHTY MARIETTA to his last in I MARRIED AN ANGEL and including such non-Jeanette films as THE CHOCOLATE SOLDIER and LET FREEDOM RING, MGM seemed to always give Nelson "A" list production values, lavish budgets and top supporting players for his films, and the same seems to hold true for such non-Eddy MacDonald films of the period as SAN FRANCISCO, THE FIREFLY and SMILIN THROUGH. I know that many fans say that this was due to Mayer's inability to ignore Nelson's enormous popularity, but Nelson certainly wasn't wildly popular before NAUGHTY MARIETTA was released, and even after the success of that film, from what I can recall MGM still didn't consider the two a team, intending to co-star Eddy with Metropolitan Opera soprano (and Columbia film star) Grace Moore in ROSE MARIE with Jeanette only substituted at the last moment when Moore's prior commitments wouldn't enable her to make the film. If I remember correctly, the departure of MacDonald and Eddy from MGM was concurrent with a general "house cleaning" by the studio of several of its' most illustrious female stars of the 1930s including Joan Crawford, Greta Garbo and Norma Shearer. Given that this move was concurrent with the rise of younger stars such as Deanna Durbin, Judy Garland, June Allyson, Mickey Rooney, and Kathryn Grayson, it seems to me just as likely, if not more so that Jeanette and Nelson, both of whom were at or approaching 40, had "had their day" onscreen and their vehicles were no longer as lucrative or as eagerly anticipated as they had been in the mid-late 1930s. The changing political climate in Europe would be another perfectly valid basis for MGM to release Jeanette and Nelson in the early 1940s. The MacDonald/Eddy films were always more eagerly anticipated in Europe than in America. For example, in Britain, Jeanette was in the "Top Ten" at the British box office from 1937 through 1942, and Nelson also made this group several times. However, even here, Jeanette was ultimately displaced by Deanna Durbin who becme the biggest female box office draw in Britain from 1939 through 1942. The loss of much of the European market due to wartime conditions severely damanged MacDonald & Eddy's commercial value to MGM, particulary when the studio could produce the immensely popular Garland/Rooney vehicles more cheaply, and seems a perfectly valid business reason for the studio's releasing them from their contracts at this time, without any personal feelings or animosities being ascribed to it. Just a few points to consider.

Here's an excerpt from a 1995 interview composer David Raksin (LAURA) gave about working with Leopold Stokowski on 100 MEN AND A GIRL. Given how quickly film scores were written during those days, it seems to me that Raksin would have had enough to do without being tested by "Stoki": A Game of Tests With The Maestro In the autumn of 1936 I returned from a working trip in England to join the composing staff at Universal Studio. There I found myself collaborating with several colleagues on music for various films whose sole unifying characteristic seems to have been the necessity to produce scores in no more than a few days ?the rush was the name by which this debilitating process was known. After a month or so of this, I had a call from Leo Forbstein, head of the music department at Warner Bros. studio, who had heard about the music I was composing from his younger brother, a secondary executive at Universal. The result was an agreement to work for Warner's on weekends not required by my home studio. On "free" Fridays I would appear at the projection room of Forbstein's group, where I would be shown bits and pieces of Warner movies for which I was expected to produce music to be recorded during the following week. I saw only special footage such as main or end titles, chases and montages-sequences in which the music would be relatively audible. In most cases there was hardly time to learn what the rest of the story was about-let alone to see the entire film. In this haphazard way I became a kind of featured link in a super-assembly line; for example, I didn't learn until months later that the star of one of the movies I worked on was Bette Davis. I had only done a few of these madhouse stints when Forbstein informed me that I would no longer be working for him. Not having caught the sly grimace that accompanied this unwelcome bit of news, I was crestfallen-until he explained that he had been hiring me for those weekends from Universal for more money than they paid me per week. He now proposed to employ me without that studio as intermediary-an endorsement of my talent that more than doubled my income. This lasted for a while, until Charles Previn, head of Universal's music department, offered me the plum assignment of working as assistant to Leopold Stokowski, who had come to the studio to provide the music for a new film, ONE HUNDRED MEN AND A GIRL, which would feature Universal's youthful star, Deanna Durbin. Of course I leaped at the chance, and soon found myself in the presence of the great man. I am a Philadelphian by birth and by inclination and was thrilled to be working with a personal idol, the conductor of my favorite symphony orchestra. My father had often played in the Philadelphia Orchestra, when an extra clarinetist or bass clarinetist or perhaps a saxophonist (for Bizet's l'Arlesienne Suite II or Ravel's transcription of Pictures at an Exhibition) was required. Stokowski, whose remarkable memory must have recognized the significance of the name, did not bring this up, so neither did I. But he did attempt to determine whether I was equal to the demands of the position by casually proposing what were actually tests of my resourcefulness. He began by giving me the first movement of a Beethoven piano sonata, of which I was to put the first section into score for symphony orchestra. He had marked it thoroughly with instructions concerning instrumental colors, doublings, etc. [i am therefore an informed witness in the matter of Stokowski transcriptions, which have often been mis-attributed to others by gossip mongers. I can testify that the task which he assigned me was not much more than glorified copying, and definitely not the work of a transcriber. Is it too much to hope that this will help to lay some of the wicked rumors to rest?] Of course I turned up the next morning with the score finished, as far as it went. Stokowski approved of everything (as well he might, since it was according to his wishes) except for one small item, where I had substituted an E-flat clarinet for the B-flat one he had expected. His raised eyebrow asked why. "Mr. Stokowski," I said, "if I had used a B-flat clarinet there, it would have had to rise out of the chalumeau (the lower register) into the upper register, and the tone quality would change." Amused, he agreed. The next "test" came the following Friday. "I would like Miss Durbin to sing the aria of the Queen of Shemakha from Le Coq d'Or, so I will need the score at once." A breeze, thought I: everybody knows the marvelous aria of the Queen of Sheba, from Rimsky-Korsakov's opera, The Golden Cockerel, with its sinuous descending chromatics. It should be easy to find. Sure! What we all "knew" was the version of the piece that appears in the orchestral suite, not the aria. So, realizing that the Eastern seaboard opera houses and music stores and libraries would be closing for the weekend at 2:00 pm, our time, I began to call every place I could think of. Everybody seemed to have the orchestra suite, but nobody had the opera aria or could offer any idea of where to find it. I tried the Metropolitan Opera, the Philharmonic and the 58th street Music Library in New York, the Boston Opera, the Boston Symphony, the Philadelphia Opera, the Philadelphia Orchestra, the Free Library and Fleischer Collection, all kinds of music publishers, libraries and stores in other East Coast cities. The time deadline soon passed, so I began to canvass other areas, gradually moving west-running up Universal's telephone bill. My unhappy suspicions were soon corroborated: plenty of suites, but no arias. By the time I finished talking to the San Francisco Opera people, Los Angeles Philharmonic librarians and several of the film studio music libraries, I realized that I was in trouble. Still I knew that the elusive aria had to be somewhere, even that Stokowski must have performed it, but 1 could not bring myself to compromise the situation by asking him. Suddenly a dim light went on in my cranial attic, and I had my first real clue: somewhere in the Los Angeles area lived a former studio music librarian named Earl Wilson, who was reputed to have "all kinds of offbeat stuff." He had to be my man, especially since he was almost certainly my last man. I knew just where to look for Earl Wilson. Out came the tattered old copies of the Musicians Union directory that every studio department saves, for reasons best known to pack rats and warehousemen. And sure enough, there was Mr. Wilson, somewhere in the northwestern reaches of the San Fernando Valley among the surviving estancias. All it took was a telephone call, but when I asked the big question it turned out that the score was still beyond my grasp-he didn't have one. "Earl," I said, "what about the parts ?" ?meaning the parts for individual instruments. "Have you possibly got a set of them?" "Parts?," said the voice on the other end, "Sure I got 'em-out in the barn somewhere." My next move was to commandeer a company car, black, with chauffeur, and to join Earl in a search for the elusive music, which we found straight-away. I thanked him profusely and promised to bring it back in a few days. Returning to the studio, I put in a call for a fine copyist of the old school-a splendid musician, and in half an hour I was with him in his modest flat on the second floor of a dilapidated house on Hollywood Boulevard. Harry Cockayne was an elderly English gentleman, very frail actually, retired, I knew, and still supporting himself and his invalid wife. I showed him the set of orchestra parts: 12 woodwind parts, 11 brass and horns, 3 percussion, harp, violins I and II, viola, cello and bass-not a very long piece. "Harry," I said, "can you combine these into a score for me? You can do it in pencil if you prefer-but I need it by Monday." Mr. Cockayne assured me that it would be ready by Sunday evening, and I promised him I would see to it that he was paid three times the Union's copying rate. According to plan I picked up the pencil score on Sunday, and spent the rest of the evening checking to see whether it was accurate, which it was in every detail. Bless you, dear Harry! The next morning I walked into Stokowski's bungalow at Universal and casually tossed the score onto his desk. Of course he knew what a task he had set me, the more so because it came on the eve of a weekend-so that my casual gesture was more than a bit snippy, and I probably deserved a sharp lecture. But the maestro was a most generous-hearted gentleman, with a gracious sense of humor, so he settled for a raised eyebrow and a quiet admonition. "Hm," he said, "very funny." Which is what comes of living a charmed life-in this case, mine.

I enjoy them, though, like the concurrent series of BABES musicals Mickey Rooney made with Judy Garland, they can get kinda preachy at times. I realize this is a consequence of the era in which they were made, but it can make for slightly squirm-inducing viewing on occasion. That one where the Judge tells Andy: "What I'm wondering is whether you're fit to be any decent American's son!" seems a little harsh to me. Also, even though I think he was a wonderfully talented performer, Mickey Rooney's performance as Andy is sometimes quite hammy and overdone, and like some of his other early work, hasn't aged well. I really never could figure out why all those pretty young actresses fell for Andy on first sight. Carvel must've been short on boys who weren't vertically challenged. lol! I think the actress who played Mrs. Hardy was Fay Holden.

Here's an interesting bit of trivia on 100 MEN AND A GIRL.: According to spy novelist Eric Ambler (THE MASK OF DIMITRIOUS), 100 MEN AND A GIRL was Prime Minister Winston Churchill's favorite film, and Churchill used to watch it to celebrate British victories during World War II. Ambler recalled that Churchill would comment as the closing credits ran, "A great talent, Deanna Durbin!"

> Did anyone notice Universal's reprising Alice Brady > and Eugene Pallette as a screwball comedy married > couple in what was, for all intents and purposes, > their "My Man Godfrey" roles? That film had been a > great hit the year before and perhaps the studio > thought they might draw in more people to a film > starring a girl whose box office appeal was as yet > unknown. Hi George: I did notice the similarities between the roles Brady and Pallette play in this film and their roles in MY MAN GODFREY, though I'm not sure they were cast as insurance against Deanna's potential lack of box office appeal. it's true that Deanna had only made one feature film before 100 Men and a Girl, but she created such a sensation in Three Smart Girls that even before it went into wide release in January 1937, many prominent periodicals had predicted superstardom for her, as the following December, 1936, commentary from The New York Times demonstrates: The success of two new youngsters in recent films promises to lift the ban from half-grown girls, and possibly start a cycle of pictures involving singing ingenues. Girls in their early and mid teens have never interested producers, but since Judy Garland attracted attention in PIGSKIN PARADE, and the industry became aware of Deanna Durbin in Universal's THREE SMART GIRLS, scouting activity has been noted. Young Miss Durbin's success has been the more pronounced. Charles R. Rogers, Universal's head, regards her as one of the important discoveries of several seasons and is making elaborate plans for her future. There is talk of reviving "The Phantom of the Opera" in which she will be starred and Hans Kraly has been commissioned to write an untitled original for her. Following Hollywood custom, most of those connected with a successful film are being advanced to high places. With "Three Smart Girls" Miss Durbin has been skyrocketed to stardom, and Adele Commandini who wrote the original, Joseph Pasternak, who produced it, and Henry Koster who directed the picture are accorded the title of geniuses of the month.... Miss Durbin, Miss Commandini's script, Pasternak and Koster were thrown together to make a B picture. Pasternak saw the possibilities in the yarn and while he was pleading for an enlarged budget, Joseph I. Breen of the Hays office, to whom the scenario had been sent for approval, called Rogers and complimented him on it. As a result, without fanfare or announcement, the picture was put on the A list, money was spent on it and now everyone connected with the project is in great demand." That's not to say that Universal wasn't doing everything it could to give Deanna an appropriate follow-up to her debut vehicle. Both Alice Brady and Mischa Auer, for instance, had appeared in Three Smart Girls with her, as well as in My Man Godfrey, so audiences seeing their names in the cast list might have expected that 100 Men and a Girl had some of the same virtues as Three Smart Girls as these films, but Deanna was so prominently featured in the "Coming Attractions" trailers and other advertising of her films (for instance, the "Coming Attractions" trailer for Three Smart Girls consisted entirely of Deanna's face imposed over an art deco background with raves quoted from Eddie Cantor) that I suspect Universal's putting Brady, Pallette, Auer and the other fine character actors in the film was simply an indication of the faith they had in her superstar potential. Of course, Brady, Auer, Pallette, et.al. were among the finest character actors in films at the time, so I don't think their names on a marquee or cast list ever hurt any star. Interestingly, in Deanna's 1939 film, First Love, a contemporary variation on "Cinderella," the comparisions to My Man Godfrey, with Pallette, who plays Deanna's uncle, cast as the head of a crazy rich family he understandably loathes, although this time his somewhat flighty, astrology-obsessed wife is played by Leatrice Joy instead of Alice Brady. As one commentator noted, it was as if Universal mated elements of the classic fairy tale with some of its' own traditional motifs, particularly those in My Man Godfrey. Pallette's role in First Love isn't nearly as large as his role in My Man Godfrey, but the scene where he finally gets fed up with his selfish family and lashes out at them is one of the best (and funniest) performances ever given by this classic and unique charactrer actor.

Hi CC: Yes, I've read that Garbo used her star power to arrange to meet with Deanna on the closed set of 100 MEN AND A GIRL to tell her how much she admired her singing. As a result of her meeting with Deanna, Garbo also met Leopold Stokowski and began an affair with him Assuming it's true (and I've seen no reason to doubt that it is), that must be quite a feather in Deanna's cap. Imagine being able to tell your grandchildren that Greta Garbo sought you out! During production of the film, Deanna also received a plaque from RADIO GUIDE magazine (at least I think that was the magazine) for having been voted "Favorite Newcomer of the Year" by listeners. According to what I read, she was the top vote getter with a remarkable 5,000,000 votes.

You're welcome, CC: Incidentally, among the accolades that Deanna received for her performance in 100 MEN AND A GIRL was a nomination as "Best Actress" by the New York Drama Critic's Circle, a tremendous feat for a young girl in only her second film appearance, at least in my opinion. With such tremendous popularity and criticical approbation, it's easy to see why other studios began signing and developing other talented adolescent performers almost immediately. It's strange to think that before Deanna came along, Hollywood didn't see any star-making possibilities in adolescent girls, even those with remarkable vocal gifts like Deanna and Judy Garland.

ONE HUNDRED MEN AND A GIRL received terrific reviews. THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER began its' review with the line: "We'd like to go on record with a prophecy. We'll tab 100 MEN AND A GIRL as one of the best pictures of the year..." In the NEW STATESMAN, critic Pat Galaway raved: "Useless to pretend that I am tough enough to resist the blandishments of Miss Deanna Durbin. The candid eyes, the parted lips, the electric energy; the astonishing voice; if they bowl over 50 million or so, surely a critic may be pardoned for wobbling a little on his cynical professional base. For this is pure fairytale, but it comes off." The LONDON EVENING NEWS noted: "Hard-boiled critics sat at the premiere with tears of joy running down their cheeks." And this observation seemed to be confirmed by Campbell Dixon's review in the LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH: "I have seen one of the most brilliant pictures of the year. It has practically everything-good music, natural, unforced comedy, an emotional quality that made strong men weak at the private view--and one of the most endearing stars in the world. Deanna Durbin is a miracle. At 15 she has a delightful voice and can hold her own with some of the finest actors on the screen." And critic Jympson Harman gushed: "It seems to be just one of those delightful accidents of team work that come along perhaps a dozen times a year; a story that comes to life. Ten times more moving than a profesed tear-jerker like STELLA DALLAS. At an age when most English girls are graduating from the Giggling-Grotesque to the Smiling-Vacuous this young Canadian combines the unforced vivacity of a child with ease and certainty of touch you only expect in a vetern actress." Incidentally, in his introduction, Robert Osborne incorrectly stated that Deanna was 16 when she made ONE HUNDRED MEN AND A GIRL. Actually having been born in December, 1921, she was only 15 when the film was produced. As David Shipman commented later: "Of the many films in which Deanna Durbin appeared, the one most fondly remembered is ONE HUNDRED MEN AND A GIRL. That a fifteen year-old child should have had such a clarity in singing and masterly musicianship is remarkable, but combined with a similar instinct for acting is nothing short of miraculous."