INTERVIEW WITH DAVID STENN
PART II: RESEARCH & WRITING
LET’S DISCUSS THE NUTS & BOLTS OF PUTTING "BOMBSHELL" TOGETHER.
I'm always asked, "What was it like to interview Jimmy Stewart? What was it like
to interview Anita Page? What was it like to interview Maureen O'Sullivan?" The
celebrity interviews get all the attention, but in my experience, the best interviews
are almost always crew members. Even today a film crew get to work before anyone
else in the morning and leaves after everyone else at night. They're on the set
all day long, and it's their job to be very aware of everything that's happening.
I mean, Jimmy Stewart was a wonderful interview, I really enjoyed talking to
him, but he only had about three or four scenes with Jean Harlow in Wife Vs.
Secretary, and what people don't realize is, that's a morning's work. So
when you say, "Tell me about a morning in 1936," and he's made 60 films since
then... That's why my most important 'finds' on "Bombshell" were people like
Bill Edmondson, who was the soundman on Red Dust. Bill had never been
interviewed -- yet he's the only one still alive who was there the day Jean Harlow
came back to work after Paul Bern's death. He was an eyewitness. A biographer's
best source.
YOU'RE SAYING CREW MEMBERS ARE THE EYES AND EARS...
Exactly. And they have no agenda, no ax to grind. They're simply eyewitnesses,
and that's what makes them so valuable and reliable. Not that anyone can
be totally trusted: when I'm writing a biography, I remind myself there are
three sides to every story: 'his', 'hers' -- and the truth.
WHO SPENT THE MOST TIME WITH JEAN HARLOW AT WORK?
Hair and make-up. And that hasn't changed. Even today they're the first people
an actress sees when she arrives in the morning and the last people when
she leaves at night. A star has her own hair and make-up people, and they're
attending to her all day long. They know her 'beauty secrets' -- and sooner
or later she's sharing personal ones as well. I see it on every series I
do.
That's why I was eager to find Jean Harlow's hairdressers, the Pagano
brothers and Marcel Machu. Neither of them had ever been interviewed.
The same with MGM hairdresser Peggy MacDonald. She died almost forty
years ago, but her family had vivid memories. Peggy MacDonald even
did Jean Harlow's hair for her funeral. That's in the book.
WAS THERE ANYONE YOU WANTED TO SPEAK WITH BUT COULDN'T?
No. I got to everyone, and I really credit "Clara Bow: Runnin' Wild" with that.
Like I said before, it was a calling card.
LOOKING AT YOUR LIST OF SOURCES, IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE THAT THERE
WASN'T ANYONE YOU DIDN'T FIND.
I’m obsessive about that, in case you couldn't tell. [LAUGHS] I just
feel a biography is only as good as it's sources, and it's a biographer's responsibility
to let the reader know where all information derives from. That way the reader
can choose whether to trust it or not. Is it culled from a primary source,
a secondary source, or hearsay? Especially with someone like Jean Harlow, whose
life is riddled with myth, controversy, and outright libel.
HOW LONG DID YOU WORK ON THE BOOK?
I started researching in 1989 and writing in 1991. My first mission is always
to find what I call 'the survivors' for interviews, then start amassing documentation:
studio files, legal files, medical records, private correspondence... But
the survivors come first, and for a good reason: many of the people I interviewed
for "Bombshell" had already died by the time it was published.
DID IT TAKE YOU LONGER TO DO RESEARCH THAN TO WRITE?
That's an interesting question, because for me there's never a demarcation
between the two. Even when I'm writing, my research never ends. I bet most
biographers will confess to the same nagging terror: finishing a book, then
getting that dreaded letter or phone call saying, "Gee, I wish I'd known
you were writing this book, because I have so-and-so" -- and it's crucial
information! So you have to be exhaustive. Never give up. No stones unturned.
SO, DO YOU HAVE ANY NAGGING QUESTIONS NOW THAT THE BOOK'S BEEN
PUBLISHED?
Honestly, I don't. Part of this is due to the fact that I finished "Bombshell" almost
a year before it was published, because Doubleday wanted it for fall, and I
turned in the manuscript in late 1992. That pushed publication back to 1993,
which gave me a grace period to double, triple and quadruple-check everything.
YOUR EDITOR WAS JACQUELINE ONASSIS, A SUBJECT OF COUNTLESS BOOKS
HERSELF. WHAT ADVICE DID SHE GIVE YOU ABOUT BIOGRAPHY?
When I was first starting out, I didn't know anything about writing a biography.
I needed a good editor, and I knew it. I also wanted my work to be taken seriously,
and the great gift that Jackie gave me was that guarantee. I know biographers
whose editors say, "Well this is all very interesting, but can't you sex it
up?" That was never ever an issue with Jackie. She wanted Clara Bow and Jean
Harlow to be treated as artists. And I mean, that's the whole reason
for biographies on them, right?
I'm not sure I'll ever do another book, because Jackie was such
an intrinsic part of the experience. What a loss...for all of us.
WHICH OF YOUR SOURCES DID YOU FIND MOST INTRIGUING?
When I embarked upon "Bombshell", I never expected to write a book where 70%
of my sources were first-time interviews. The most intriguing? There were so
many...the late Hortense Williams, Mother Jean's cousin, spent the summer of
1916 with the Carpenter family. Lived with them. That's gold for a biographer...
And the families of all her husbands: Charles McGrew's kids -- until "Bombshell",
no one had even known what became of him -- Paul Bern’s nephew, Harold
Rosson's family, even Dorothy Millette's family. Not a single one of these
people had ever been interviewed. Who else? Tony Beacon, who wrote "Today Is
Tonight" -- I know it's said that Carey Wilson wrote it, but I have a signed
contract between Tony and Jean Harlow. Her dentist, Dr. Leroy Buckmiller, who
extracted her wisdom teeth in the spring of 1937 when she almost died on the
operating table, was still alive and in his nineties. No one had ever spoken
to him, either. The families of Dr. Leland Chapman, Dr. Emil Tholen, Dr. Edward
B. Jones -- who was also Louis B. Mayer's doctor and who planted the story
of Paul Bern's impotence -- Dr. Saxton Pope, who treated Jean Harlow in San
Francisco when she was there with William Powell and Myrna Loy. Again, all
first-time interviews.
I guess if I had to pick one, I'd choose Grace Temple. I had tracked
down all Jean Harlow's nurses during the last week of her life, but
Grace was the only one still living (she died last year). You'd think
someone would've spoken to her before... I mean, she was there.
This was an eyewitness. She's also a perfect example of how the research
never ends: I didn't find Grace until after "Bombshell" was done
-- bear in mind I'd been looking for her for three years -- so I
had to go back and make last-minute revisions. Another month and
it would've been too late.
DID YOU HAVE AN IMAGE OF JEAN HARLOW BEFORE YOU WROTE THE BOOK
AND DID THAT IMAGE CHANGE AS YOUR RESEARCH PROGRESSED?
I don't come into the project with any preconceptions, because you've got to
be completely open and objective to anyone and anything. You have to weigh
it all, because even the most outrageous rumor can contain a kernel of truth
-- and that leads you in a whole different direction. So no, I didn't go into
it with any kind of preconceived notions. I think when you do -- when a biographer
has an agenda -- it shows, and the reader picks up on it. If anything, I think
Bombshell is too dry; it almost bends over backwards to be fair to Jean Harlow,
and as a result, there's less passion on the page. I see that as my failing,
but there'd been so much written about this subject -- untrue, partially true,
wishful thinking, etc. -- that I decided to be very detached and objective.
WHAT WAS THE BIGGEST ISSUE TACKLED IN THIS BOOK?
The biggest issue to me was the most fundamental: her identity. There's a line
in the book, "Known worldwide but a stranger to herself," which embodies
how I came to feel about Jean Harlow. But can you blame her? She died at
26, and that's young. How many people know themselves at that age?
And when you look at the careers of her contemporaries -- Crawford, Davis,
Gable, Cagney, Tracy -- they didn't take off until they were even older.
It's a testament to Jean Harlow's talent that her stardom lasted seven years,
yet she's still as popular as all of the above, whose careers spanned decades.
But back to your question: to treat a subject who only lived to
age 26 as some sort of mature, functioning adult -- well, they're
not, and she especially wasn't. And she wasn't an aggressive, expressive
personality either. Clara Bow could walk into a room and present
a definite, defiant personality. Jean Harlow was a chameleon -- she
could be one thing to one person and someone completely different
to another. And she was dominated by strong personalities with selfish
motives. Look at the pattern of her life and the three major influences
in it: Mother Jean, Paul Bern, William Powell. Each one was trying
to make Jean Harlow into something she wasn't. And by all accounts,
she didn't know who she was.
"BY ALL ACCOUNTS" BECAUSE YOU NEVER TALKED TO HER YOURSELF...
I don't flatter myself: she wouldn't have told me much. She didn't open up
to people. I was most wary when I'd interview someone and they'd say, "I
knew her better than anyone else" or "I knew her so well..." And I'd think, "Hmm,
I don't think anyone knew her well."
YOU OBVIOUSLY HAD TO ASK SOME TOUGH QUESTIONS. DID THIS AFFECT
PEOPLE’S WILLINGNESS TO TALK TO YOU?
People were willing to talk, but that doesn't mean that was easy for them.
Paul Bern’s family, well, that's a difficult, delicate situation. And
certainly Dr. Fishbaugh’s family, with him misdiagnosing her -- they
knew I knew and I knew they knew. So what I tried to communicate was, "I know
you know, and you know I know, but in the end doesn't matter. Because Jean
Harlow couldn't have been saved." Kidney disease was fatal. They didn't have
dialysis or transplantation so misdiagnosing her didn't...
HE DIDN'T KILL HER.
Exactly. But that still doesn't mean he was any more professional for misdiagnosing
her, then giving her glucose injections when she was already full of fluid.
So it's a tricky subject.
TALK ABOUT TRICKY SUBJECTS, YOU INTERVIEWED "HARLOW" AUTHOR IRVING
SHULMAN. WHAT DID THAT MAN HAVE TO SAY FOR HIMSELF?
It's important to remember that Irving Shulman was a novelist, and a pulpy
one at that. He wrote "The Amboy Dukes" which was a bestseller, and a very
racy book for it's era. And at the time he concocted "Harlow," there was no
standard for this specific genre. So since Shulman was a novelist, he novelized
Jean Harlow's life. When I asked him why, he quoted Lytton Strachey: "The line
between fictional biography and biographical fiction is very fine indeed." He
hid behind that line. That was his excuse.
In fairness to Shulman, there is some truth in that book. He did
have access to a couple of telegrams that Mother Jean wrote, and
a couple of letters which I’ve seen and they're genuine. But
the Paul Bern wedding night dildo saga, which was one of the many
rumors, he chose to present as fact. Christian Science causing Jean
Harlow’s death, a more rampant rumor and also untrue, Shulman
gave as gospel. And of course he invented dialogue, turning Jean
Harlow into a profane slut.
WAS HE WILLING TO TALK TO YOU RIGHT OFF THE BAT?
Absolutely. He had no shame at all. He was not apologetic or repentant. He
felt that he had written a groundbreaking bestseller and made a lot of money.
He didn't care, quite frankly, about how it affected the people who knew
and loved Jean Harlow -- and that's so antithetical to my philosophy... But
like I say, I try and understand everyone's point of view, because condemning
someone is easy. But in this case, it was hard to avoid. Because I'm told
his book broke Mont Carpenter's heart, and I think that's reprehensible.
I don't want to dwell on this. It's not worth the time. William
Powell said it best: after reading "Harlow", he shook his head and
said, "She wasn't like that at all." And of course, she wasn't.
HOW DO YOU EVALUATE SOURCES AS BEING RELIABLE? FOR EXAMPLE, YOU
REFER TO "THE AUTHENTIC STORY OF MY LIFE BY JEAN HARLOW." DO YOU
THINK SHE ACTUALLY WROTE THAT HERSELF?
Of course not. [LAUGHS] The fan magazines were studio-controlled, just like
everything else from that era. In smaller towns and less prestigious newspapers,
studio publicists even wrote reviews; all you had to do was fill in the name
of the theater. Then again, reviews meant very little. People went to the movies
regardless of the review.
As for the fan magazines: I found a certain amount of accuracy on
'acceptable' subjects and an unwritten code of what you couldn't
print. Sometimes that in itself can be interesting. For example,
in late 1932, after Paul Bern had died and MGM was scrambling to
rehabilitate Jean Harlow's reputation, stories appeared in fan magazines
about her charity work. Well, she was making four films a year: when
did she have time? It's a senario right out of Bombshell --
I mean the movie, not my book. [LAUGHS]
In terms of "The Authentic Story of My Life": my attitude is, they
have to get their information somewhere. When it says Harlean Carpenter
went to Camp Cha-Ton-Ka and such-and-such happened, I use it as a
springboard: now I have to prove it true or false. That's why you
document every source in your book. If you read a quote and you're
curious or skeptical, you can go right to the Notes and say, "Aha.
He got this from "Photoplay." I don’t buy it," or "He got this
from a fellow camper at Cha-Ton-Ka. Wow. That sounds like the real
deal." An extensive Notes section allows the reader to make choices.
And I think that's every reader's right.
YOU MENTIONED SPEAKING WITH THE LEGENDARY GEORGE HURRELL, AND
HE EVEN SHOT YOUR PORTRAIT -- HOW COOL WAS THAT?
One of the greatest experiences of my life. George worked with the same camera
he used on Jean Harlow. He was meticulous. He was an artist. He started
out as a painter, and that's how he saw light in his pictures.
We used to go to Musso & Frank, where he'd been eating since
about 1928. I guess he enjoyed talking to me because I had something
to offer in return. George was accustomed to everyone wanting something
from him. So whenever I would ask about his experiences with Jean
Harlow, I'd make sure to tell him something from my own research,
something I thought he didn't know that would interest him.
My favorite detail about George: whenever he'd call me, he'd always
say, "Hello, David. This is George Hurrell the photographer calling." As
if I didn't know! But that's how he was. So humble, so winning.
HE KEPT WORKING RIGHT UP UNTIL THE TIME OF HIS DEATH -- HE NEVER
RETIRED, DID HE?
Never. I was the second-to-last person he photographed. I think the last was
Sharon Stone.
A NICE TOUCH USING HIS PORTRAIT OF YOU ON THE "BOMBSHELL" DUST
JACKET!
Jackie's idea. It wasn't hard to convince me. [LAUGHS]
And the conversation continues...
For downloading purposes, the remainder of this interview has been broken down
as follows -- please click on the topic heading of your choice to continue on:
© Lisa Burks - March 30, 1997
