Will the love story between Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy be revealed?

[JackieM]

Was the manuscript that Turk saw authentic? Well, there were several manuscripts written over several years. Turk saw one of them. Sharon was able to obtain one that had been turned over to an editor. she published it. The rest became Gene's property after Jeanette's death. Jeanette became discouraged after the first publisher told her (she revealed this in a radio interview) that the book was not salacious enough to publish. So there were several--Gene chose to show Turk only one.

[d120421]

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.

[daddysprimadonna]

S'okay stargzn,YOU weren't the one at leapt at the opportunity,wrongly,to try to start something with me.YOU don't need to apologise.

 

 

 

 

[Tacky]

> Was the manuscript that Turk saw authentic? Well,

> there were several manuscripts written over several

> years. Turk saw one of them. Sharon was able to

> obtain one that had been turned over to an editor.

> she published it. The rest became Gene's property

> after Jeanette's death. Jeanette became discouraged

> after the first publisher told her (she revealed this

> in a radio interview) that the book was not salacious

> enough to publish. So there were several--Gene chose

> to show Turk only one.

 

How could Sharon Rich legally publish a manuscript written by MacDonald? Did MacDonald's estate give Rich the rights? How can one get a copy of the manuscript that Rich published? How is the manuscript that Rich published different than what Turk used as the basis of his book with regard to the alleged MacDonald/Eddy romance?

[JackieM]

I shall make one more attempt at this. After spending a modest amount of time attempting to answer all the questions--quite worthy of the Queen's counsel--I clicked the "post message" and sent my novella ( or close to one) off into infinity; for it certainly never showed on this forum. I'll accept it as a macabre sense of humor on the part of this message board, for it has happened to me several times. On the matter of the interview --it's possible that it was tv rather than radio. It was on a poorly done CD that included the Tony Thomas interview at Twin Gables: a cute interview with Jeanette and Gene offering advice to young marrieds: a couple of Nelson interviews--radio I believe. Dates. probably in the 50s. But I shall offer another version from Turk's book in which Jeanette's language is a little more genteel than the word I used "salacious". This from a letter Jeanette wrote: "I am sorry to report that for the time being, I have abandoned my memoir because of publisher difficulties. they were not satisfied with the rewrite, and I became disgusted with their attitude; they apparently, want something more controversial than I could give them. They published Peyton Place and the sequel--both as you know full of 'smut". Now, with finger crossed, I shall post message.

[JackieM]

Well, by dogie, it made it. 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". 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.

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 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?

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?

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?

[pktrekgirl]

You know, this thread is getting more and more 'interesting' by the day.

 

Maybe I've just moderated too many internet bulletin boards..... *lol*

[daddysprimadonna]

You know, this thread is getting more and more 'interesting' by the day.

 

 

 

Maybe I've just moderated too many internet bulletin boards..... *lol*

 

 

 

 

Ruh-roh! LOL!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JackieM]

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. 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. 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.

 

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??

 

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.

[jeanettefan7]

Some very good points where used there. I believe Nelson and Jeanette also worked on early tv shows like thr Patti Page show up until 1957. I am not pleased with Mr Turk's book, he left out many interesting things about Nelson and Jeanette, for instance they did a number of shows on the radio, and from eye witness reports really enjoyed working together.This was AFTER their films. The early Patti Page show tapes have since vanished.

[Tacky]

> 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.

 

If Rich didn't get the permission of MacDonald's estate to publish the manuscript, she has committed the crime of theft. Do you know if she got the estate's permission? Who controls MacDonald's estate now?

[joshwayne]

There was NO love story between Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy. They merely worked together successfully, and they were friends. That's it. To suggest otherwise, and to believe any fan organization except the one authorized and supported by Jeanette MacDonald and her beloved husband, Gene Raymond, is incorrect and comes close to blasphemy. The fan club authorized and supported by Jeanette and Gene is the Jeanette MacDonald International Fan Club, headquartered in Topeka, Kansas. Jeanette and Gene's love story is the only true one. It's a pipe dream to suggest otherwise, and is also an insult to the memory of Nelson and his wife, Ann. Mr. Osborne, you should know better.

[d120421]

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.

[d120421]

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.

[lzcutter]

The early Patti Page show tapes have since vanished. It makes one wonder what else has vanished. >>

 

It's very likely that the reason that they vanished is that if they were on videotape, they were erased long ago and the stock was reused. Happened to a number of shows (including the Tonight Show with Steve Allen and the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson). Early episodes have been lost to history and the bulk eraser.

 

If they were kinoscopes, they were likely trashed because they needed the room for storage.

[JackieM]

"there was NO love story between MacDonald and Eddy" To believe ANY fan organization except the one authorized by Jeanette MacDonald and her BELOVED husband Gene Raymond is incorrect and close to BLASPHEMY"

Merciful Heavens, GOD has spoken to this forum! Has this happened before or has MY blasphemy brought forth this ABSOLUTE pronouncement? I must be strong and remember I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul!

Therefore, I say to you-- Nelson and Jeanette were LOVERS! Hmmmm, waiting for lightning to strike! I still live! Perhaps it struck Topeka by default

[Cecilia_57]

You mean Jeanette's "organization" is the only TRUE authority as to whether Nelson and Jeanette were in LOVE??? Are you are serious?? This is not coherent thought. Sharon Rich never would have come across THEIR love story if it weren't for JEANETTE'S sister, Blossom!!! And...aren't we taking this just a LITTLE too over the top?? Blasphemy? Oh please...

[bolfrances]

The fact about the Jeanette International Fan Club is this: it was started by Jeanette MacDonald herself. Her husband, Gene Raymond, supported it until his death. He personally attended their annual conventions until the year before his death. Some of the original members are still living. So...basically, in a way, they do speak for Jeanette and her husband. Author Turk attended meetings before and after his book was published using material provided by Gene Raymond. Why would anyone believe a fictional account written by the mentioned Sharon Rich ? It might be nice to watch the MacDonald/Eddy movies and pretend that the two are in love. I enjoy that myself. However, I don't delude myself into thinking it was more than just good acting. Can't we just enjoy their films without bringing up gossip about people who are no longer alive to reply to it?

[Arabella]

If Blossom Rock, Jeanette's closest family member, saw fit to tell the story of Jeanette and Nelson's love affair and other very close friends also felt it was time to end the fable of the MacRaymonds then it wasn't wrong for Sharon to tell their story. I also think using words like blasphemy is totally inappropriate to the subject. No one prints quotes from living persons without their consent or lawsuits would certainly ensue. There is simply too much information out there about the love affair between Jeanette and Nelson to accept the word of the one man who had so much to lose if the truth be known. Take the blinders off.

[JackieM]

So, the Jeanette Fan Club officials speak for Jeanette and her husband, and Turk attended several of those meetings. How cozy. And how was Nelson Eddy viewed by this cozy group? Yes, there are many fans still living, who attended some of these meetings. Some will tell you that the Club officials despised Nelson. In the last few years, the president of the Club was quoted as saying, she would rather have Jeanette on NO US posage stamp than one with Nelson Eddy. They once were members of his club; had a dispute with him and hated him to this day. OTOH they worshiped the beloved Gene. Why would they ever admit that Jeanette loved Nelson, when they hated him so much? And Gene lived off their adoration, and his status as the bereaved widower of a big star. Their lives revolved around their fabrications of a fairytale marriage. without it, they were nothing. And this is who we should believe??

[d120421]

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.

[Cecilia_57]

>whether Miss Rich may have exerted "undue influence" on Miss Rock in >obtaining her "information."

 

Why in the world would Sharon "exert undue influence" on Blossom for information about Jeanette and Nelson when Sharon didn't even know who they were till Blossom told her? Blossom obvously wanted to tell her all she knew. To even suggest this may have happened is absurd. Anyone who knows or has met Sharon would know what I mean.

[lzcutter]

Why in the world would Sharon "exert undue influence" on Blossom for information about Jeanette and Nelson when Sharon didn't even know who they were till Blossom told her? Blossom obvously wanted to tell her all she knew. To even suggest this may have happened is absurd. Anyone who knows or has met Sharon would know what I mean. >>

 

But the problem for the majority of us non-McDonald/Eddy fans is that we have not met Sharon Rich or Prof. Turk so we keep asking for more information regarding reviews, interviews and analysis of the books so that we might have a better understanding of the issues.

 

So far, the majority of posters here who have read both books have only been able to provide their feelings about the books and their feelings about the controversy.

 

Meanwhile, the rest of us are still hoping that someone will be able to provide the information we seek.

[jarhfive]

Hello,

 

I like Jeanette McDonald and Nelson Eddy, but I had no idea the intensity of feelings towards McDonald-Eddy-Raymond by their fans...wow!

 

I have read almost all messages in this topic and, I think, it is one of the more interesting threads I've read (TCM forum-wise). Oh, a bit of going around in circles, but that is okay...that sort of thing happens when people feel strongly about something.

 

While I am here, I will take the opportunity to mention my favorite Jeanette McDonald and Nelson Eddy and a couple of other performers...stuff.

 

Jeanette McDonald's and Nelson Eddy's duets of "Indian Love Call" from "Rose Marie".

 

Jeanette McDonald and Nelson Eddy in "Maytime"--the movie from start to finish.

 

Jeanette McDonald's and Jane Powell's duet "Springtide" from "Three Daring Daughters"

 

Allan Jones' "Donkey Serenade" from "The Firefly" (well, Jeanette was listening...I still really like the song).

 

Rusty

[jeanettefan7]

Those are some of my favorites too.