Taffy To Darling Hank: "I Am So Excited That I'm Hungry All The TIME!"

Today I am publishing another excerpt from "The Gals They Left Behind," by Margaret Shea, with illustrations by Bek Files. You can find the complete book online if you go to http://www.archive.org/ and type in "The Gals They Left Behind."

The story tells of the struggles of two soldiers' wives, Jo Sullivan and Taffy Smith who move from New York City to a farmhouse inherited from Aunt Het. Along with the young Daphne (named Eloise in the radio version) these two lonely women learn how to cope with raising chickens, how to milk a cow, grow vegetables, among the myriad of skills that farm life entails.

The book is made up entirely of the two women's letters. But the radio show reworks the story and uses the information conveyed in the letters to tell the narrative and occasionally uses the letter device ("Dear Bill").

As I said several months ago, Shirley Booth did the radio version of this story (The Cavalcade of America, 8/14/44, episode #396). It could be heard for free at http://www.archive.org/. The story was originally published in August of 1944 by Ives Washburn, Inc. The information provided at The Internet Archive states that the story is no longer copyright protected. With that in mind, I am offering another excerpt today.

In the radio production (Cavalcade of America, 8/10/44) Shirley Booth plays Jo Sullivan, and co-0star Helen Clare plays Taffy Smith. As Shirley's Jo tellingly says how she's quite lonely for her husband Corporal Bill through various expressions. So too, Taffy is hysterically missing her Hank. If you listen to the radio adaptation (which is unfortunately a small portion of the story), then you will hear Shirley Booth's fine performance in conveying this character.

I read the book and I can say that Shirley literally brings Jo Sullivan to life. She beautifully conveys the heart-felt tears of character Jo by the timbre and crack of her voice at the conclusion of the radio show. The sincerity and conviction is revealed throughout by Shirley's distinct voice in this radio production. "The Gals They Left Behind" certainly deserves a listen by all Shirley Booth fans.

Here's an excerpt of the original story on Christmas time...

The Gals They Left Behind

THANKS AGAIN FOR VISITING!
by Margaret Shea

December 20

DARLING HANK,
It is a wonderful night. This morning we went out into the woods and brought home a pointed fir of surpassing beauty. Now it stands decorated and glorious. All the dinginess of the sitting room has been banished.

Fabia is with us for the week. She is as much a goose about Xmas as I am. We voted Jo down on when to dress the tree, she holding out for the night-before-Xmas tradition. Fabia and I said, "Nuts! A tree is a wondrous thing to contemplate only before the great day. Thereafter it's like torn wrappings and unpaid bills something to be thrown away."

All the extra-special cooking has been done: meringue kisses, stuffed dates, filled cookies, molasses balls. We've found holly and pine cones for wreaths, and cow bells of various sizes which are now polished and hanging on the front door.

Packages have started coming in. We've piled them under the tree on a moth-eaten red blanket spread there. I am so excited that I'm hungry all the time. Jo has had to hide the Xmas baking from us. Fabia and I are going coasting at midnight. There is a fine bright moon, and I want to do
something specially festive.

I can't bear to think of you in barracks. I want to think that you are remembering me and the three Xmases we have had together, and all the beautiful ones ahead.

Your
TAFFY

December 26

DEAR BILL,
It was a jolly holiday. Flocks of half-forgotten people sent us greetings. Ours was the gayest house in a village where holidays receive scant recognition. The day was given over to the children: to shouts of "Lookit mine, br-r-r, bang bang!"; to highly irregular eating; to winding up toys; to snowshoeing in the living room. Daphne has never been so happy. ( Did I tell you her mother is now overseas, nursing? ) No presents came for her except from her grandmother, but we made her heaps of small things and bought new wall paper for her room.

I got an eighteen-pound ham. Taffy, a bucket of kippered herring, a snow shovel, and a second-hand lawn mower. Aunt Lucy sent me some frivolous underwear that must wait trying on until after the war. We ate breakfast in pajamas in the living room. Every time the kids opened a new gift, regardless of the giver they kissed us heartily all round. Susan came in the afternoon with her children. The noise was tremendous. About five o'clock we put all the youngsters to bed.

Taffy, who has a passion for acting out picture postcards, wanted to go out to serenade the neighbors. I gladly insisted upon staying at home among the debris. An hour later I heard singing up the road. The minstrels came in with their catch: Clum, Hod and his visiting sister from Portsmouth, Angle Withers with her sheep face and frizzed bangs, and Amos, the game warden, who could have been soberer.

I made the agate pot full of coffee, and served what remnants of food were left. I was glad, despite my exhaustion, that they had come. Amos caught me off guard under the mistletoe while the company roared with laughter at his boldness.

"Ha," he said, "there's not much wildcat in you. I wished you could have seed Het the time I cornered her."

"Oh yes," sighed the old ones, "Het was a great fighter."

Now it's bedtime. Don't waste a penny on my thoughts. They are all yours.

Jo

*****

THANKS FOR VISITING!

JOIN ME AGAIN TOMORROW!

*****
For purchasing any of my books, you can visit Amazon.com
You can also check www.bookfinder.com
which offers the best prices on new & used copies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Bill, His Pinup Girl: The Shirley Booth & Bill Baker Story
by Jim Manago
Foreword by Leslie Sodaro
Published December 1, 2010
Further details at: http://shirleybooth.blogspot.com

*****

Now available on Kindle: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0076ZCBM2

Love is the Reason for it All: The Shirley Booth Story
by Jim Manago
Radio Research by Donna Manago
Foreword by Ted Key
BearManor Media, May 2008
http://bearmanormedia.bizland.com

Seven Films Reviewed From My Columnist Days....

ANNIVERSARY TODAY:

December 13, 1943. Shirley Booth was heard on radio - NBC’s Cavalcade of America. The episode was entitled "Check Your Heart at Home."

*****

Here's seven films I reviewed from the weekly newspaper column I did in 2000 and 2001.....

December 29, 2000
VIDEO VIEWER
by
Jim Manago
SMALL TIME CROOKS

This Woody Allen acted/directed/written comedy from DreamWorks is an amusing movie, but certainly not among his best works. Available on DVD for $26.99, VHS rental. Rated "PG,." running time of 95 minutes.

Not many people will know that this latest Allen movie has part of its story about a bungled burglary inspired by and lifted from a Warner Brothers 1940’s Edward G. Robinson gangster spoof called LARCENY, INC. In the latter movie, a group of ex-cons purchase a luggage store with the intent to tunnel under the store into the next-door bank. They hit water and oil pipes while business upstairs booms quite annoyingly. And the luggage store does so well that they abandon their heist idea at mid-point. They realize their future is in staying honest. That is, until their old ex-con pal Leo (Anthony Quinn) breaks out of jail and forces them to finish the job. There’s a great Christmas scene of Robinson outrageously dressed as Santa Claus, smoking a cigar, and being a lookout on Christmas Eve while tunneling continues underneath the bank. LARCENY, INC. is unfortunately not available on video yet, but it shows up on cable occasionally. What makes it so funny is that the actors played it really straight and serious! Not so with Allen’s recent release…

In SMALL TIME CROOKS an ex-con (Allen), his pals, and his sassy manicurist wife (Tracey Ullman) buy a pizzeria and turn it into a cookie shop in order to tunnel into the bank down the street. The cookie business does well at the same time their bank heist plan quickly falls apart. In no time, the cookie store becomes a big corporation. Until an art dealer (Hugh Grant) ingeniously robs the business and Allen’s wife. Certainly it’s an original twist to LARCENY, INC.’s basic plot premise.

By comparison SMALL TIME CROOKS is dismal. Although Allen takes the movie down a different path from LARCENY, INC., his character lacks the energy and strong personality to make this movie a really great one. Like other comedy artists, such as Abbott & Costello in their later years, Allen is funny... But he seems to be bored and acts his part rather mechanically. If anyone deserves special mention, its Tracey Ullman whose superbly-played role makes the movie truly worthwhile. Devoted Allen fans will enjoy anything Allen does, and everyone else will have some fun – but don’t expect much. Woody Allen’s SWEET AND LOWDOWN from summer 2000 is vastly superior.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

*****

January 19, 2001

VIDEO VIEWER
By
Jim Manago

SOUNDS LIKE FUN STARRING GERALD MCBOING BOING

These four funny animated shorts offer a rehearsing alternative to the current violence-filled releases. Digitally remastered and unavailable on VHS at a suggested retail of $12.95. Running time of 28 minutes. Columbia TriStar.

Meet Gerald McCloy. He’s the boy that doesn’t speak words, but instead utters sounds. This boy barks, squeaks, says "boing, boing, boing, boing." He utters all kinds of sounds – but never speaks words. Yes, these 1950’s Technicolor cartoons are indeed unusual and interesting for kids of all ages. They are truly absurd, and ridiculously funny.

Unfortunately, this tape is too short with just four episodes. Each episode, produced by UPA (UNITED PRODUCTIONS OF AMERICA), is seven minutes long. They are:

GERALD MCBOING BOING: This is the original episode created and written by Dr. Seuss, whose real name is Theodor Seuss Geisel. You would know that just by listening to this tape since he had a penchant for rhyming narration and dialogue. The introductory episode to this character won an Academy Award in 1951 for Best Short Subject. Here Gerald is sent home from school because of this problem. Other kids reject him. Nobody wants him around. So he runs away, only to meet someone who makes him rich and famous.

HOW NOW BOING BOING: A voice professor, good at getting animals to talk, tries to help the boy speak words. Even trying to get Gerald to say the word "ouch" fails. Instead he makes a deflating tire sound. Finally, the professor uses a machine to convert the boy’s sounds into words. What an improvement! Now the only thing is his parents need to use a phone to speak to their son!

GERALD MCBOING BOING’S SYMPHONY: The noise-making boy gets a job at a radio station. He becomes the voice to the various symphony orchestras’ instruments. However, he amusingly mixes up the radio sound effects script with the musical score.

GERALD MCBOING BOING ON PLANET MOO: Aliens capture the boy and think earthlings talk like Gerald.

The stark animation style is effective in focusing attention on the boy. Hopefully, Columbia TriStar brings us more GERALD MCBOING BOING titles in the future – sixty or ninety minutes of shorts per tape would be ideal.

*****

February 2, 2001
VIDEO VIEWER
by
Jim Manago

ELVIS: THAT’S THE WAY IT IS
-Special Edition

This Warner Home Video release is a newly re-edited version of the August 4th, 1970 Las Vegas concert with never-before-seen rehearsal footage now available for $14.95 in VHS and coming to DVD March 6th. Newly remastered, remixed, in stereo, with trailer. 97 minutes.

If you love seeing Elvis Presley perform on and off-stage in his later years then this video is for you! Film restoration specialist Rich Schmidlin has re-edited this previously available film using found footage shot by six cameramen and the corresponding 16-track audio masters. They had unlimited access to Elvis. I haven’t seen the version that’s been available before – but I can tell you that the editing in this version is really superb and captures Elvis quite well.

The first forty minutes includes Elvis goofing around with his band and back-up singers in separate rehearsal sessions. You’ll see close-ups of his famous footwork and guitar work. Some of the moments provide a somewhat personal glimpse of this legendary performer. The final sixty minutes is the actual concert that kicked off a 1970 nationwide tour.

One of the best songs is Thomas Baker Knight’s beautiful "The Wonder of You" performed to perfection by Elvis. Strangely, this song only reached a peak chart position of nine. Elvis gives the most on the number one song "Suspicious Minds." In fact he gives so much energy in that number that the follow-up "Can’t Help Fallin’ in Love" is a disappointingly rushed rendition. It lacks that heart- wrenching appeal of the recorded version. Elvis also performs: "Heartbreak Hotel", "One Night," "Don’t Be Cruel," Blue Suede Shoes," "All Shook Up," "Are You Lonesome Tonight?," "In The Ghetto," and several cover versions (including "Bridge Over Troubled Waters"), etc.

So many imitators have overdone Elvis’ style of performance. However, with this video you have the one and only Elvis. Since his untimely death in 1977 his popularity has increased to the point that he could never be forgotten. Here's someone who could sell over a billion records, star in 31 motion pictures, make many appearances on T. V. and in person. ELVIS: THAT’S THE WAY IT IS – Special Edition will be frequent rental by his fans. This tape would be an excellent purchase since it shows Elvis as the master performer…and that’s the way to remember him!!!

*****

VIDEO VIEWER
by
Jim Manago
CLEOPATRA

Attention is on Rome with Oscar-winning GLADIATOR and 20th Century Fox perfectly-timed the release of this 1963 movie on April 3rd. The 3-disc DVD is $26.98. 2-tape VHS $14.98. This slow-moving, uneven, but still worthwhile epic received well-deserved Oscars for art direction, cinematography, costume design and special visual effects. 243 minutes.

Elizabeth Taylor superbly plays the famed sizzling Queen of Egypt as she influences powerful men of her time, Julius Caesar (Rex Harrison) and Mark Anthony (Richard Burton). Some high points of Joseph Mankiewicz’ CLEOPATRA include Cleopatra’s majestic procession into Rome aboard a huge Sphinx, Cleopatra’s vision of Caesar’s death. Roddy McDowall’s wonderful interpretation of Caesar’s son, and the torrid love scenes between Taylor and Burton. But by today’s standards the love scenes, as well as the battle scenes, are tame.

CLEOPATRA was supposed to be a two million dollar quickie for a struggling 20th Century Fox, but instead it cost a staggering forty-four million dollars. But adjusted to today’s dollars it would amount to a whopping $440 million, making it one it of the costliest movies ever made, almost closing down a big studio permanently! And if you consider the numerous problems that beset the production, from terrible mismanagement, waste, illness, scandalous affairs, and even corruption, then it’s amazing that this saga was even finished.

The DVD version offers us as fascinating behind-the-scenes look at the making of CLEOPATRA with a brand-new American Movie Classics (AMC) production called CLEOPATRA: THE FILM THAT CHANGED HOLLYWOOD. The cable channel will premiere this documentary as an episode in their weekly "Backstory" program on April 3rd. In short, it offers revealing details about a movie that changed Hollywood’s practices. VHS purchasers should set VCR’s to AMC to enjoy CLEOPATRA: THE FILM THAT CHANGED HOLLYWOOD!

*****

March 16, 2000
VIDEO VIEWER
by
Jim Manago
REAR WINDOW

A superb thriller from Universal Studios Video returns after being available for five years. This classic from director Alfred Hitchcock is full of characteristic dark humor, anxieties and moral ambiguity. 115 minutes. Rated "PG. $14.98 for VHS, $29.98 for DVD.

This 1954 masterpiece from Hitch tells the story of an injured photographer (James Stewart) who becomes a peeping tom to the activities in an apartment building across the street during a summer heat wave. Soon he suspects a neighbor (Raymond Burr, TV’s PERRY MASON and IRONSIDE) of murdering his invalid wife. Grace Kelly and Thelma Ritter co-star.

REAR WINDOW is well worth owning since a stellar cast makes the movie work and because it says some important things about voyeurism and all of us. Hitchcock’s keen ability to manipulate an audience is quite clear in REAR WINDOW as we, the viewers, are drawn into the story, and become curious spies too.

The following movie deserves special mention: REQUIEM FOR A DREAM. The offbeat nightmarish and gripping world of addiction is graphically depicted in this somewhat avant-garde Artisan Entertainment release available on March 20th.

Ellen Burstyn truly shines as Sarah Goldfarb, a lonely widow who wants to be "Somebody" that she will do anything. In her drug-induced effort to lose weight for a commercial TV appearance, she loses her grip. Burstyn’s outstanding physical transformation involved having a camera mounted on her to shoot some scenes and spending four hours a day being fitted with prosthetics, etc.

Be forewarned that this movie is definitely not for everyone. But I would recommend it for Burstyn’s performance. Her acting merits winning the coveted Best Actress Oscar in next week’s Academy Awards!

*****

November 10, 2000
VIDEO REVIEWER
By Jim Manago

ANNIE GET YOUR GUN
Arrives on Video November 14th

Not seen in theatres or on TV since 1973, this long awaited classic MGM musical finally makes its debut on video thanks to Warner Home Video. The 50th Anniversary Special Edition VHS is $19.98, the DVD is $24.98. Both editions have extras. If you love musicals, this movie is for you!!! Certainly, will make a great gift.

Take a trip back in time to 1950. An era when lavish Technicolor musicals reigned supreme and MGM provided huge budgets to make theirs the best. This production is based on the 1948 Broadway hit show. It is filled with such popular Irving Berlin tunes like "There’s No Business Like Show Business," "Doin’ What Comes Natur’lly," Anything You Can Do," "I Got The Sun In The Morning," The Girl That I Marry," and five other hits. If your not sure you heard these tunes, then here’s your chance to enjoy some great Americana.

ANNIE GET YOUR GUN is about sharpshooter Annie Oakley (played to perfection by Betty Hutton). Her competitive and romantic entanglement with marksman Frank Butler (Howard Keel) are musically expressed as they tour in "Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show". It’s a fun-filled simple type of movie pleasure not found at all today. The VHS added feature is the number "Let’s Go West Again" performed by Betty Hutton that was cut from the final print. Also, the tape has two numbers performed by Judy Garland as Annie Oakley before poor health forced her departure. With these outtakes, you’ll see that Hutton was better cast for the part.

*****

10/30/00

THE PERFECT STORM

Arrives on Video November 14th

The somewhat predictable though superb Warner Home Video release about a true story of a storm and some North Atlantic fishermen will be available for purchase on DVD for $24.98, and on VHS for $22.98. For those enthralled by great special effects, this is your perfect movie!

Get ready for the fascinating true story of the fight against a "perfect storm." Be prepared because the movie packs a powerful emotional and sensory assault. The realistic state-of-the-art special effects convince us of our physical limitations when placed against the terrifying and unrelenting forces of nature. With a solid cast, including George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, Diane Lane, and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, THE PERFECT STORM is destined to be a favorite of many families this holiday season, and rightly so! Don’t miss this event!

*****

THANKS FOR VISITING!

JOIN ME AGAIN TOMORROW!

*****
For purchasing any of my books, you can visit Amazon.com
You can also check www.bookfinder.com
which offers the best prices on new & used copies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Bill, His Pinup Girl: The Shirley Booth & Bill Baker Story
by Jim Manago
Foreword by Leslie Sodaro
Published December 1, 2010
Further details at: http://shirleybooth.blogspot.com

*****

Now available on Kindle: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0076ZCBM2

Love is the Reason for it All: The Shirley Booth Story
by Jim Manago
Radio Research by Donna Manago
Foreword by Ted Key
BearManor Media, May 2008
http://bearmanormedia.bizland.com

Thanks To Marta Kristen, Julie Harris, Richard Herd, Chuck McCann, Joyce Van Patten, Joe Franklin & Others For Interest In THE SHIRLEY BOOTH STORY!

I had the pleasure to meet Marta Kristen in New York City last weekend at the convention run by Gary Lyons. Marta is best known for playing Judy Robinson on Lost in Space. She's a quite genuine and pleasant person to know.

For a signed 8X10 still, I exchanged a copy of my first book, Love is the Reason for it All: The Shirley Booth Story. 

Marta started reading it and said she liked the way my biography started...Hope she found time in her busy schedule to finish it! She started reading my biography of Shirley Booth, and told me that she liked the way it starts off.... She said, that's a good thing! Hopefully, she'll find time to finish it. 

Part of Marta's life these days is keeping busy helping to raise her 16-year old granddaughter. Some of the other celebrities who have read or are reading my book include Julie Harris, Joyce Van Patten, Dick Van Patten, Elizabeth Wilson, Richard Herd, Chuck McCann.....THANKS TO ALL FOR YOUR LOVE AND INTEREST!

*****

THANKS FOR VISITING!

JOIN ME AGAIN TOMORROW!

*****
For purchasing any of my books, you can visit Amazon.com
You can also check www.bookfinder.com
which offers the best prices on new & used copies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Bill, His Pinup Girl: The Shirley Booth & Bill Baker Story
by Jim Manago
Foreword by Leslie Sodaro
Published December 1, 2010
Further details at: http://shirleybooth.blogspot.com

*****

Now available on Kindle: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0076ZCBM2

Love is the Reason for it All: The Shirley Booth Story
by Jim Manago
Radio Research by Donna Manago
Foreword by Ted Key
BearManor Media, May 2008
http://bearmanormedia.bizland.com

MEDIA SIGHT MAGAZINE: A Study of the Negative Criticisms of Alfred Hitchcock by Jim Manago

ANNIVERSARY TODAY:

December 9, 1945 - Heard on radio in Theater Guild on the Air. The episode called "Ned McCobb’s Daughter" co-starred Alfred Lunt, Richard Conte and Diana Lynn.

*****
The following is the article I did for the now defunct Media Sight Magazine from 1984. This article is copyrighted with Library of Congress.

A Study of the Negative Criticisms of Alfred Hitchcock

by Jim Manago

“… Hitchcock’s reputation has suffered from the fact that he has given audiences more pleasure than is permissible for serious cinema.” –Andrew Sarris


Alfred Hitchcock has been criticized and praised since the beginning of his career.
Among the major criticisms leveled against him is the one that he lacks the stature of a true artist; instead he is a supreme craftsman, a technical genius, or mere entertainer. This viewpoint stems from several characteristics of Hitchcock: his unmitigated fascination with technique for its own sake, his cunning ability and incessant desire to manipulate his audiences emotions, and the difficulty of finding a consistent moral or intellectual vision due to the ambiguousness of the characters and the narrative. Besides, Hitchcock’s wit and lack of seriousness in the interviews he consented to is problematic to scholars and critics. In this study I will indicate some of the many viewpoints that carry this negative approach to Hitchcock in order to determine the underlying assumptions or issues.

George Kaplan considers the controversy over Hitchcock noted above as “more apparent than real.” (1) He contends that those praising him have the upper hand because … “the opposition being mostly so disorganized and so lacking in depth and rigor that it seldom ventures beyond an uncomprehending reactionary view of Hitchcock as ‘mere’ entertainer, craftsman, and ‘master of suspense’ that ignores rather than answers his serious admirers.”(2)

To a certain extent Kaplan’s thoughts are sound (excepting the notion of such a view being “so disorganized”), but his admission of being Robin Wood (3) makes full reliance on his opinion seriously suspect since he does have an axe to grind: note that his book Hitchcock’s Films is loaded with interpretive excesses, and his reverence to Hitchcock as serious artist is built on the politiques des auteurs. Our study will show that the anti-Hitchcockians (those opposed to Hitch) are not so disorganized as much as highly limited to questioning the right of the filmmaker to be considered an artist as well as entertainer; Hitchcock is not allowed to mask his art with a covering of glossy commercialism if he is an artist.

And just as these anti-Hitchcockians inadequately answer the admirers as Robin Wood states, so too the admirers somehow neglect disastrously in satisfying that critical impulse in all of us that technique is too far too obvious and artificial in Hitchcock’s films to allow him to be considered any more than a showman displaying superficial thrills and enjoyment. As those studying the criticism of Hitchcock have noted, meaning has been read into the director’s films (most recently William Rothman's book on Hitchcock). The critics’ fears of repeating the excesses of the auteur theory advocates has led to an equally reprehensible, extreme, and questionable approach to Hitchcock. This approach is exemplified by the writings of Lawrence Kane, Charles Higham, Gavin Millar, Charles Samuels, and David Thomson, among others.

Before considering these writings, it’s essential to say a few words about the interviews Hitchcock submitted to, for the worth of such is constantly either whole-heartedly accepted or rejected. The difficulty with the interviews seems to lie with the admirers. They have to attempt to reconcile what Hitchcock says about the meaning or significance of a film with what their studies have led them to conclude. But the anti-Hitchcockians just need to observe the remarks of the interviews, take them at face value (believing everything he says), in order to continue leveling charges against him. At least they have thought such a methodology is adequate. Hitchcock has painted a picture of himself as the glorified technical wizard a la cinema, dazzling his audience with his magic wand of commercialism. That is, Hitchcock avoids making grandiose claims of being an artist. On the other hand, the admirers must ignore or explain away Hitchcock’s tendency to trivialize the films he worked on.

David Thomson has aptly stated: “Metaphysical questions get shopkeeper answers; matters of trade or technique make him garrulous and avuncular…”(4) Since Hitchcock might have purposely approached interviews with a protective facade, in order to continue to ‘sell’ his approach to film to a superficial audience, the anti-Hitchcockians have to rely on something other than just the interviews. An easy solution to reconciling the bipolarity in thought about Hitchcock’s significance in cinema aesthetics is not apparent from the interviews. It is better to be for or against Hitchcock on the basis of studying the films directly. Few have completely tried this approach; most have supplemented their attacks with interview material, figuring if anyone should know what the films mean the filmmaker should. But any attack utilizing the latter methodology will hold little weight in serious scholarship.

Of course, every critic will prefer one group of Hitchcock movies to another set of weaker or less characteristic Hitchcock films. So negative criticism does arise in the sense of preferring one particular aspect of the filmmaker over another. This inevitably has caused the split between those critics revering the British period and those that prefer the American period (all films made after 1939).

Lawrence Kane in 1949 approached Hitchcock as a filmmaker degenerating with his move to America (from Suspicion on to Rope, excepting the outstanding Shadow of a Doubt and the transitional film Rebecca). Hollywood supposedly ruined Hitchcock. The increasing growth of camera trickery in the 1940’s Hitchcock period led to what Kane considers Hitchcock’s downfall. Yet, Kane overlooks all use of camera trickery in his British period, as if it just started with Hollywood trapping him in something uncharacteristic of his aesthetics. More importantly, this opposition to his American period leads to a deeper gripe with the filmmaker. Kane tried to prove that Hitchcock became enamored of technique as the latter aged in the filmmaking. However, this is not satisfactorily proven. The conclusion of Kane’s article is an observation or opinion tacked on, and certainly not a development from the article’s argument:

“The truth may be that his gift is essentially a minor one, a perfection of technique, which surpasses craftsmanship but falls short of art… For the most disturbing factor about Hitchcock’s work is that in no single film, nor anymore in their sum, can one can find anything approaching a personal statement. All he asserts of himself, alas, is that famous frame. His is anonymity of conviction, which the genuine artist, no matter what his intent, would find it impossible to maintain.” (5) Kane thus exposed a viewpoint, which will be repeated and reworked over the thirty years after writing it. Basically the charge is of technique without meaning or purpose to it. Since Hitchcock abundantly revealed his reliance on tricks that are inherently cinematic, Kane is able to assert that “novelty becomes the substitute for meaning, “ (6) and we are given the impression of a filmmaker lacking a personal philosophy “not only confirmed by but would seem to account for his increasing interest in technical trickery.” (7)

Kane’s statements are obviously inconclusive since the thesis is asserted at the article’s conclusion, with prior material not defending such a viewpoint. Hitchcock’s seeming lack of discernible personal philosophy is confused with the issue of his technical perfection. And just because his philosophy is not readily apparent does not give a person the license to say he lacks one. In short, Kane’s remarks are of more interest as an exposition of position taken till today, and less valuable as trustworthy position since they are not developed or proved to hold weight against Hitchcock as written in 1949.

The impression, as Kane calls it, or suspicion that Hitchcock overdoes technique, artifice, or pure form in order to conceal his artistic or intellectual void continued with Charles Higham’s famous attack in 1962. Repeatedly Higham tries to reduce the massive adulation that Hitchcock received. Even with successful films, Hitchcock is considered only a success for being adroit with the cinematic tricks, for being very clever. Beyond his technical virtuosity, which Higham contends varies sharply from film to film, Hitchcock’s only claim to being a master is for skillfully understanding “what can move an audience without fail.” (8) One could agree with Higham for his harsh words concerning the consideration of Hitchcock as metaphysician, as Eric Rohmer and Claude Chabrol assert him to be. But Higham’s dissent is poorly contrived. Unnecessarily, Hitchcock’s personality is given a strong blow: he is a practical joker, a cynic, narcissistic, cold, etc. Hitchcock is further likened to a clever showman in control of audiences’ reflexes in Pavlovian manner. Besides, Higham requires unfairly that “an understanding of Hitchcock’s oeuvre can only be reached when it is seen in the hard unwavering light of this commercial-minded philistinism.” (9)

More defeating is Higham’s predilection for limiting his discussion of the films, even the good ones, to the showier flashes if technique; the effects. Theme and dramatic content is lost in this attack. Continually Higham concentrates on how Hitchcock does something (e.g., “brilliantly executed”, cleverly done, well-staged), with praise and criticism always on technical aspects whether it be related to the acting, set design, music, soundtrack, scripts, or cinematography. Hence by limiting his article to just such aspects, Higham tries to imply that Hitchcock can only be understood on such a shallow level. And by assuming his absurd thesis at the outset, that “The mechanics of creating terror and amusement in audience are all Hitchcock properly understands,” (10) the defense is barren, devoid of any credibility or soundness.

The fact that Hitchcock increasingly and explicitly admitted his skill at manipulating his audiences with his films has troubled other critics. For instance, Gavin Millar’s essay expresses his acknowledgement of Hitchcock as a master; but in admitting the director has weaknesses, Millar seems to be unable to view Hitchcock as more than a very successful popular entertainer, with a penchant for a skillful and evocative use of cinematic techniques. Millar’s case against Hitchcock is partly related to the ideas of his stories, which do not stand up, he contends, to intellectual scrutiny:”… for the most part simple, unitary ideas, rising directly but perhaps unconsciously from Hitchcock’s own needs rather than thoughts.” (11)

And when they are complicated, it is merely via fears and anxieties. Hitchcock exploits our fears and anxieties, and manipulates our emotions according to Millar. Yet the flaw in this type of criticism has been noticed by Raymond Durgnat: “Unfortunately his dismissal of Hitchcock relies heavily on a selection of his least interesting moments which, abundant as they are, isn’t the whole story.” (12) Moreover, by basing his case on material from the Truffaut interviews, Millar indeed is admitting how weak his position really is. Sure Hitchcock gives the impression multiple times that his aim is to exploit the audience, to have fun at the game of dazzling with the interesting formalistic devices he comes up with in each film, - yet how reliable is the case against Hitchcock if it is based to a significant extent on what Hitchcock himself says? Since the director has shifted opinions from one interview to another, besides a master at evasive and trivial remarks, it’s inevitable that one would have to look elsewhere for developing a strong, reliable case against Hitchcock. This is not to deny the interview material any value; yet, it is an inordinately complex matter to determine the reliability and speciousness or various remarks of the director.

It’s unnecessary to be disappointed with Hitchcock’s manipulative tendency, as Gavin Millar’s article suggests. This tendency does not unavoidably imply a lesser artistic stature. Warren Sonbert considers Hitchcock’s contempt for his audience, this “derisive attitude”, (13) beside the point. Hitchcock could have this attitude and still be “one of cinema’s most irritating and important artists.” (14) Sonbert considers the director to be to be such a demanding moralist: for he plays, via cinematic devices such a subjective camera, on the audiences’ tendency to overlook the ethical in a dramatic situation that Hitchcock sets up, and then scorns their willingness to associate with the wrong values. Although it is not necessary to agree with Sonbert’s case for ‘Hitchcock as moralist’, the former illustrates the possibility and indeed the probability that manipulative devices are allowable for the director to still be considered an artist- provided they are the means and not the end of his filmmaking. And the increasing degree that audience manipulation is an end in itself, and not a mere means, certainly would reduce the profundity of his art. Yet, more importantly, how certain could one be concerning the end of Hitchcock’s filmmaking? Are the interviews the complete picture of what Hitchcock thinks? Are the critical articles fully in line with understanding how far Hitchcock applied technique for its own sake? Does the filmmaker’s intention really matter at all? A simple answer to any of these questions would be highly deceptive.

Chares Samuels 1970 article claims that Hitchcock’s secret is really “the absence of meaning, the absolute identification of meaning with effect.” (15) What some critics consider as moral statements in Hitchcock’s films, Samuels calls “emotional cues.”(16) According to this approach, the films indicate a strong sense of control and manipulation of feelings – but as far as intellectual substance, Samuels observes none. Once again, a sort of study revolving around the value of the filmmaker is mixed up with remarks about his personality. For instance, “Only our money commands his respect and nothing so validates his contempt for the rest of us as our willingness to pay for manipulation.” (17) It is quite apparent that Samuels narrowing of Hitchcock to “low art” is linked to many assumptions that color his perceptions of the films; for instance, that Hitchcock can not operate on more than his audiences’ emotions. Strong weight is placed on the interviews which entails concluding that Hitchcock is not obsessed with themes, but rather with “emotional stimuli born from the primitive stages of indiscriminate terror.” (18)

Most revolting is Samuels refusal to understand events or actions to mean any more than what is physically or emotionally shown on the screen; thematic or moral depths are simply not there since Hitchcock is supposedly “primitive in insight.” (19) It may be true that Hitchcock shares similarities to Poe, but that does not state the whole case concerning Hitchcock. Further, Samuels claims that even his best films lack meaning. Nevertheless, Samuels study is loose and insubstantial; just another attempt to severely limit Hitchcock to one category.

Even more recently, in 1979, Hitchcock has come under attack by David Thomson. Instead of Mr. Samuels more subtle approach of delimiting the extent of Hitchcock’s art, Thompson declares his attack blatantly. But the charges can not be taken seriously for they revolve entirely around psychologizing of Hitchcock. The interview material is also proof of Thompson’s arguments. For example, this “evil genius” Hitchcock is alienated from reality as Bruno Anthony of Strangers on a Train. In this attack, one-liners are the proofs of the accusations. That is, a derogatory remark is made, and the proof is given by mentioning in one line an aspect of a film. Certainly not adequate proof, even if many films are cited in this fashion. The statements Thomson presents are indeed shocking, and most certainly indicate his lack of emotional restraint. In short, the same old insinuation is here in disguise, with just as little substantive proof as Lawrence Kane’s writing in 1949; that is, technique in the world of Alfred Hitchcock has been severed from meaning or is the only “meaning” there is. Thomson states it succinctly when he says the filmmaker is hiding behind “the bravura of technical completeness.” 20

Basically the question is of delineating the fine line between art and artifice. At what point do we grant the status of artist to filmmaker? The critics and scholars discussed here have their own standards and definitions of art and artist. In short, these critics see Hitchcock as not fulfilling their standards or conditions to be considered an artist. Those that disqualify any filmmaker who uses manipulation of an audience’s emotions as a means or part of the end will certainly be at odds with those allowing it. And perhaps also, the significance of Hitchcock’s technical agility is misunderstood, and emphasized out of proportion. How one views Hitchcock will be related to one’s definition of art/artist. Obviously, there are aspects about Hitchcock’s films, albeit perhaps misunderstood, that must contradict accepted standards of delineating art from artifice which troubles those that take an anti-Hitchcock stand. Thus the underlying assumptions concerning the anti-Hitchcockian literature are also the assumptions these same writers hold about art versus artifice; about what is and isn’t art.

The underlying assumptions include the standard than an artist does not cater to audience taste as Hitchcock’s films do, an artist avoids manipulation of his audience in such blatant ways like Hitchcock (as in Psycho), an artist does not answer questions of vast intellectual import with the trivial shopkeeper approach like Hitchcock did, an artist is concerned with more than mere emotional resonances – more importantly an artist deals with the complexities of the world not like Hitchcock’s mere “simple, unitary ideas. (11) All of these “negative” qualities of Hitchcock (the things that make it difficult to consider him an artist) subsume neatly under the rubric of assets or aspects of an entertainer.

All such aspects of Hitchcock that agitate the critics may be those of an entertainer, but it appears unnecessary and perhaps even unfair to accept the notion of art and artist that these anti-Hitchcockian critics hold to so vigorously. A broader notion of aesthetics would permit these entertainment values, and would perhaps overlook them in Hitchcock’s films, and still consider Hitchcock an artist and his films works of art.

In introspect Andrew Sarris has recognized that the problem with Hitchcock criticism perhaps most simply when he said: “Certainly, Hitchcock’s reputation has suffered from the fact that he has given audiences more than is permissible for serious cinema. No one who is so entertaining could possibly seem profound to the intellectual puritans.” (21) Unlike the anti-Hitchcockian literature studied here, a more balanced and sensible approach, properly understanding various aspects of his cinematic expression, is called for in order to view Alfred Hitchcock honestly. A full comprehension of Hitchcock will not come as long all aspects are not considered and balanced, both commercial and artistic facets. Perhaps in the case of Alfred Hitchcock a simple classification of whether he is artist or mere filmic showman is impossible because his films blend art and artifice so ingeniously as to prevent their separation. END

NOTES

1 George Kaplan, “Alfred Hitchcock: Lost in the Wood,” p. 46.
2 Kaplan, p. 46-47.
3 In the book "Hitchcock’s Films," p. 11, Robin Wood admits George Kaplan was a pseudonym.
4 David Thomson, “The Big Hitch: Is the Director a Prisoner a Prisoner of His Own Virtuosity?” p. 26.
5 Lawrence Kane, “The Shadow World of Alfred Hitchcock,” p. 40.
6 Kane, p. 40.
7 Ibid.

8 Charles Higham, "Hitchcock’s World," p. 4.
9 Higham, p. 4
10 Ibid.
11 Gavin Millar, “Alfred Hitchcock versus Truffaut,” p. 87.
12 Raymond Durgnat, The Strange Case of Alfred Hitchcock, p. 26.
13 Warren Sonbert, “Alfred Hitchcock: Master of Morality,” p. 37
14 Sonbert, p 38.
15 Charles Samuels, "Hitchcock," p. 297.
16 Ibid.
17 Samuels, p. 303.
18 Samuels, p. 297.
19 Samuels, p. 298.
20 Thomson, p. 27.
21 Andrew Sarris, “Alfred Hitchcock: Prankster of Paradox,” p. 8.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, Lindsay. “Alfred Hitchcock,” Sequence, 9 (Autumn 1949).
Durgnat, Raymond. The Strange Case of Alfred Hitchcock. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1974.
Higham, Charles. “Hitchcock’s World.” Film Quarterly, 16, No. 2 (Winter 1962), 3-16.
Houston, Penelope. “The Figure on the Carpet.” Sight and Sound, 32, No. 4 (Autumn 1963), 159-164.
Kane, Lawrence. “The Shadow World of Alfred Hitchcock,” Theatre Arts, 33, No. 4 (May 1949), 33-40.
Kaplan, George. “Alfred Hitchcock: Lost in the Wood.” Film Comment 8, No.4 (November/December 1972), 46-53.
Lubin, David, McBride, Joseph. “Buts and Rebuts: Hitchcock: A Defense and an Update.” Film Comment, 15 (May/June 1979), 66+.
Millar, Gavin. “Hitchcock versus Truffaut.” Sight and Sound, Spring 1969 82-87.
Samuels, Charles Thomas. “Hitchcock,” American Scholar, 39, Spring 1970, 295-304.
Sarris, Andrew. “Alfred Hitchcock: Prankster of Paradox.” Film Comment, March 1974, 8-9
Sonbert, Warren. “Alfred Hitchcock: Master of Mortality.” Film Culture, 41, Summer 1966, 35-38.
Thomson, David. “The Big Hitch: Is the Director a Prisoner of His Own Virtuosity?” Film Comment, 15, March/April 1979, 26-29.
Wood, Robin. Hitchcock’s Films, New York: A.S. Barnes and Co., 1977.

*****

THANKS FOR VISITING!

JOIN ME AGAIN TOMORROW!

*****
For purchasing any of my books, you can visit Amazon.com
You can also check www.bookfinder.com
which offers the best prices on new & used copies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Bill, His Pinup Girl: The Shirley Booth & Bill Baker Story
by Jim Manago
Foreword by Leslie Sodaro
Published December 1, 2010
Further details at: http://shirleybooth.blogspot.com

*****

Now available on Kindle: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0076ZCBM2

Love is the Reason for it All: The Shirley Booth Story
by Jim Manago
Radio Research by Donna Manago
Foreword by Ted Key
BearManor Media, May 2008
http://bearmanormedia.bizland.com

Andrew Sarris: "There Is Too Much Of A Tendency Already for Film History To Bog Down Into A Collection Of Unrelated Oral Ego TRIPS..."

I dug out another of my lengthy Classic Images articles written twenty-five years ago. This is from issue #103, January 1984:

The Problem: Who Authored Citizen Kane?

by
Jim Manago

In the contemporary reviews of Citizen Kane, it becomes obvious that Orson Welles is depicted as the sole author of the film, or at least the most significant person creating it.

The New Yorker (May 3, 1941) mentions Welles and "fine players," Newsweek (March 17, 1941) tells us that "it lacks nothing" but fails to credit anyone but Welles, Life (March 17, 1941) makes us aware of Welles and Gregg Toland (the cameraman), Time (March 17, 1941) is the only one of the four that credits six of the Mercury Players with their respective roles. Of course, the latter periodical does not fail to over-emphasize Welles' role.

None of the four reviews sampled note the co-scriptwriter, Herman J. Mankiewicz. The New Yorker even gives one the impression that Welles is responsible for the gloomy lighting and the "irregularity of the opening" (of the film).
Life presents the view that Welles offers new techniques including "shoot(ing) into bright lights... into the dark and against low ceilings, till every scene comes with the impact of something never seen before." Their reviewer also fails to mention any other actor and gives the impression that Welles was the only one working on the script when they state that he "had a four-way RKO contract as producer, script writer, director, and actor... And for the narrative, Welles has tapped a segment of life fearfully skirted by the U.S. cinema...."

Besides making Kane look like a one-man show, Time botches up the name of the newsreel twice by calling it the "March of Time" instead of its proper name "News on the March." Two of the reviews (Time and Newsweek) will bring in the Hearst resemblance to Kane, the other two omit this to concentrate on the strength of the story or cinematic techniques. Out of these factual differences and discrepancies, the most significant one is shared by all reviews: Citizen Kane is Welles' own creation, with any contributor other than Welles so minute one need not mention their names, and when one does - one combines it with the name of Welles.

The reviews seem to agree about [Citizen Kane's] enormous value to the audience, its story line, etc. Only when we learn of the anecdotes about Welles' relation to other workers on the film do we doubt his significance to the production or realize he might have tried to take credit where credit is not due.

This problem of authorship of Citizen Kane became apparent in October 1971 with the publication of Kael's article "Raising Kane." In this article, one notes that "The evidence was all one-sided and the case wholly circumstantial, but nevertheless, 'Raising Kane' presented an authentic critical problem that could neither be dismissed or ignored."(footnote 1) The two primary counter-arguments to this celebrated essay are George Coulouris and Bernard Herrmann's interview for Sight and Sound, and Joseph McBride's " Rough Sledding with Pauline Kael." We examine several of the disputed issues raised by Kael to better understand the film researcher's problem with Citizen Kane:

1. The authorship of the script: Kael has interview material from Mankiewicz's secretary to the effect that Welles did not write one word of it. But Peter Bogdanovich in "The Kane Mutiny" (Esquire, October 1972) has reported that Welles and his secretary, Katherine Trosper, state Welles did write and rewrite drafts of the screenplay. The executive assistant for the production, Richard Barr, confirms this.

2. Screenplay vs. finished film: Kael constantly emphasizes the importance of the screenplay to the film's outcome, whereas others see the screenplay as subservient to the director's shaping of the written screenplay to appropriate cinematic conventions. Bernard Hermann, the composer of the film's score, states "...in the film, the end has nothing to do with the damn screenplay really. It's the springboard. Nobody goes to look at Kane just for the story. It's how it's done." (footnote 2)

3. The reason for music composer Bernard Hermann's fake opera: Kael states that to use Mankiewicz's planned opera (Massanet's Thais) "...would have cost a fee...."(footnote 3) Herrmann (who should know the right reason since it was he, not Kael, who composed it) says "The musical information is rubbish... The truth is that no music in Thais or any other opera would create the impact of the scene - a terrified girl lost in the quicksand of a powerful orchestra." (footnote 4)

4. The "prismatic" approach of Kane is credited by Kael to Mankiewicz; Herrmann says he believes " ...Orson was influenced by a novel of the time called "I am Jonathan Scrivener." All its characters talk about a man they know." (footnote 5) Welles himself stated that he'd " ...been nursing an old notion - the idea of telling the same thing several times - and showing exactly the same scene from wholly different points of view. " (footnote 6)

5. Who really deserves more credit for the script? (The writer of the first draft or the one who revises it "Prostituted Writer Suffered At The Hands Of The Egomaniac Director Director And yet Covered Himself With Glory, Posthumously."(footnote 7) Herrmann's asserts "Mankiewicz's credits don't show any other remarkable scripts. His only moment in the sun was when he came across Orson Welles."(footnote 8) "But Welles needed Mankiewicz," insists Kael, "Welles has never been able to write this kind of vehicle for himself." (footnote 9)

6. Was Kane Meant to parallel William Randolph Hearst? To answer this question, one must have the real intentions and motivations and of the real author(s) not just Kael's "chit-chat" as McBride points out.

I suppose the list of differences and discrepancies could be much longer than I've cared to make (just skim Kael's work on this). But the point I wish to establish is that these differences and discrepancies in the facts about a film, like Kane, certainly prove film research could be problematic from the start. However, if a thorough job is done, I believe one could avoid the "one-sided" approach of Kael, and maybe even Bogdanovich's "emotional proximity"(footnote 10) to Welles.

Of course, the usual point of departure for the researcher is with the blatantly-known facts. when one cannot positively ascertain who wrote the script to a film or if a film's credit's are dishonest, then one is lost. Or if one falsely assumes erroneous facts are true, what real strength or soundness do the conclusions based on those facts have?

A researcher is on firmer ground with large amounts of honest information from people who were involved in a film production then if he relied upon bits and pieces of this information and anecdotes from a select group of people and his own opinions of events to account for discrepancies in production people's testimony (Pauline Kael repeatedly does this). Much firmer foundations are established by written documents or transcripts (audio or video recordings) of the event or activities in question.

For Kane, a thorough examination of the scripts or drafts and letters between the responsible people at the time would develop a case for the unfair neglect of Mankiewicz's contribution to the film. If we refuse to investigate fully the scripts of Kane and the studio's material, then we run into a problem by relying on interview material too much. Andrew Saris points out: "There is too much of a tendency already for film history to bog down into a collection of unrelated oral ego trips by the few survivors of the production process. What an opportunity to even up old scores! And what an irresistible temptation to exaggerate for effect! The hazard to the historian is so obvious that a certain amount of corrective skepticism is in order." (footnote 11)

One cannot know for certain 'what is true', what has been accepted as truth, but which in fact, is false, 'what has been taken for granted' by reading only one account or limiting one's viewpoint by avoiding an interview with someone you wish to neglect or diminish in importance (as Kael does by not interviewing Welles). Not only must we study the anti-Wellesians such as Kael, Houseman, among others; we must also examine the pro-Wellesians such as McBride, Herrman, Coulouris, Bogdanovich, etc. (footnote 12)

Much more than studying the accounts of the pro- or anti-Wellesians is demanded to get at the "truth" of Citizen Kane. One has to investigate the scripts of Kane as Robert l. Carringer did in 1978; here the contributions of Welles and Mankiewicz in the writing of Kane was examined. The transformation of final script to the film as it stands aids us in understanding the creative contributions of other men besides the writer(s). This type of analysis was done prior to Carringer's script analysis, but I'd say somewhat confusedly due to a misunderstanding of Welles' contribution.

After considering the material presented presented by Kael, Coulouris, Herrmann, MacBride, Bogdanovich, Sarris, and Carringer, I conclude that Welles does deserve the co-screenwriting credit - - it seems he did do major work on the script either writing and/or revising - with Mankiewicz.
Carringer's study expertly shows us where and how this research should have preceded the script, not Kael's anecdotes and rambling display of her knowledge. "Mankiewicz was hired to furnish him with what any good writer ought to be able to provide in such a case; a solid, durable story structure on which to build. What Mankiewicz gave him, Welles approached as he always approaches 'story material', not as a blueprint to be approximated or realized but as a source work at the service of an original, independent creation..." (footnote 13)

Herrmann's story about about the operas seems more trustworthy. as to the resemblances to Hearst in the film (and Marion Davies' resemblance to Susan Alexander): it's obvious Mankiewicz drew heavily upon them in his versions of Kane known as "The American," but Welles reduced the similarities to them in his versions.

Kane is really a conglomerate of several real-life people not completely represented accurately in the fictional man. In this case, things were accepted as truth which turned out to be false; e.g., Welles being the sole author of Kane, or Kane as the biography of Hearst, etc. Kael tried to defeat director-auteurism by presenting Welles as insignificant to the Kane story (she presents him as a man with a magical touch, but no real artistry to reveal), and she over-endorses Mankiewicz, for he's the screenwriter of Kane who has been misunderstood, neglected, cheated, and persecuted by Wellesians.

Her interesting discoveries, such as Toland's influence on Welles, startled me until Bogdanovich adequately dissolved this hog-wash. My real gripe with Kael's article is that it should be prefaced by the statement that Welles was not interviewed by Kael for this study.

Most poignant is the knowledge that those studying the film Citizen Kane to get to it's truth," in a certain sense, imitated the self-serving methods of Kane's yellow journalism by not doing thorough research before rushing the manuscript off to the publisher.

NOTES

1 Robert L. Carringer, "The Scripts of Citizen Kane," Critical Inquiry, Winter 1978, p. 370.

2. George Coulouris and Bernard Herrmann, "The Citizen Kane Book," Sight and Sound, 41, No. 2 (Spring1972), p72.
3. Pauline Kael, "The Citizen Kane Book," (New York: Bantam Books, 1980), 98.
4. Coulouris and Herrmann, p. 73.
5. Coulouris and Herrmann, p 72.
6. Peter Bogdanovich, "The Kane Mutiny," Esquire, October 1972, p. 181.
7. Joseph McBride, "Rough Sledding with Pauline Kael," Film Heritage, 7, No 1 (Fall 1971), p. 14.
8. Coulouris and Herrmann, p. 72.
9. Kael, p 72.
10. Andrew Sarris, "The Great Kane Controversy," World, January 16, 1973, p 68-9
11. Sarris, p 68.
12. I have borrowed the terms anti- and pro-Wellesian from Sarris.
13. Carringer, p. 400.

*****

THANKS FOR VISITING!

JOIN ME AGAIN TOMORROW!

*****
For purchasing any of my books, you can visit Amazon.com
You can also check www.bookfinder.com
which offers the best prices on new & used copies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Bill, His Pinup Girl: The Shirley Booth & Bill Baker Story
by Jim Manago
Foreword by Leslie Sodaro
Published December 1, 2010
Further details at: http://shirleybooth.blogspot.com

*****

Now available on Kindle: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0076ZCBM2

Love is the Reason for it All: The Shirley Booth Story
by Jim Manago
Radio Research by Donna Manago
Foreword by Ted Key
BearManor Media, May 2008
http://bearmanormedia.bizland.com