John Wayne Biography

Fans of the short running TV show “Community” will remember an episode where Troy (Donald Glover) meets his childhood idol Levar Burton who played Geordi LaForge on Star Trek. The meeting doesn’t go well. Burton peppers Troy with questions about his interests. Troy goes numb with nervousness; he can’t even speak. His fear of being disappointed paralyzes him. He only really wanted a picture because “You can’t be disappointed with a picture”.

I wouldn’t say John Wayne is an idol to me but I have put up posters, bought special editions and collections. I also read an engaging biography that covers everything Wayne. It’s by Scott Eyman and I recommend it if you’re at least a little interested in old Hollywood.  Most people have a favorite John Wayne movie, for me it’s True Grit. Most of the John Wayne movies I watched as a kid were from his later years, The Sons of Katie Elder, Big Jake, The Searchers. Even now I can’t bring myself to get through the old ones like Angel and the Badman and Stagecoach. Sure they’re masterpieces but it was too long ago. We started making movies with better action, lighting, and story in the 50s. It’s gotten better since then. Comparisons between movies are made within eras for a reason. 

Most people know that John Wayne was actually born Marion Michael Morrison in Iowa and came West with his family in 1914. He played football at USC for a few years, but stopped after breaking his collarbone bodysurfing. Wayne owes his success (and his name change) to legendary director John Ford, who used him as an extra on some early sets and cast him in small roles. Stagecoach was his first break and the one that made him a star. A lot of his cowboy roles that followed feel like some version of the same solitary man, tall in the saddle, white Stetson. Some of his non-cowboy and non-military roles feel forced. That was my impression anyway. Wayne just became so intertwined with those cowboy characters it felt odd that he should do anything else.  He did countless throw away Westerns from 1932 to about 1949 when She Wore a Yellow Ribbon hit the screen. Yellow Ribbon saw more commercial success than the others. 

  

You get a sense that studios cranked out films the way TV networks cranked out game shows in the 60s, with a focus on quantity over quality. But actors on studio contracts worked hard and didn’t make a lot. Even in post war America the top stars were mostly on studio contracts which required them to make, sometimes, 3 or 4 movies a year. That’s a lot for A list actors today. A few can manage a heavy load, Samuel L Jackson comes to mind. But making a lot of copy and paste westerns didn’t translate to big bucks. More work from on screen talent meant more profitability for MGM or Fox or RKO.  

Eyman’s book is as much an early history of Hollywood and the studio system that trained actors (called properties) and bought and sold their rights like commodities. After 1948 the big studios had to pay stars to make their films. The Supreme Court ruled that studios were essentially monopolies with their vertically integrated set ups. Studios like Paramount and Fox owned the production, distribution and exhibition of films, a violation of antitrust laws. The decision changed everything about how movies were made.

 It swung the power to stars and away from executives. It also coincided with the rise of John Wayne’s American cowboy aesthetic. He started his own production company to retain creative control of much of the films. Called Batjac Productions it financed most of his movies from 1952 to 1974. He wasn’t a good businessman though and lost a lot of money on The Alamo. The grandness of the picture caused budget overruns and scheduling nightmares. It ended up costing a massive chunk of his personal wealth.   

There is a lot in there about Wayne’s marriages, divorces, and affairs. A heavy drinker and gambler, his lifestyle choices and work schedule created tension with his relationships. His second wife, a Mexican actress, even tried to shoot him after he came home late from a movie set. She thought he was sleeping with the female lead, he denied it. He had health problems early on due to chain smoking; one source said 6 packs a day. Is that even physically possible? He had his left lung removed in 1964 after cancer diagnosis and struggled to move around freely after that.

A registered Republican, he was an active anti-Communist crusader and lifelong patriot. He also gave an interview to Playboy magazine where he made it sound like blacks needed to be supervised until they could be trusted to run their own affairs. It seemed like a cheap shot to interview an old man and poke fun at his answers. A lot of his views are embarrassing nowadays but not far outside of his time.

 It’s common today to hold historic figures to a modern standard of cultural sensitivity. The Yankees quit playing Kate Smith’s version of “God bless America” due to a nasty song she wrote about blacks in the 1930s. It’s an impossible standard that no one can hope to rise above. Part of the problem with having “idols” is defined in the word. People aren’t idols they’re flawed, so what. How long until networks start pulling down the Duke’s films?

 At least on some level we should separate art from personal affairs. Each case is different and some individuals are closely linked with what they do. For most of us, drawing a line between an actor’s politics and their movies is part of the exchange. We don’t assume the actor behaves the way the character would.

Old Westerns in particular represent an idealized vision of truth and justice, good versus evil. Clear understandings of right and wrong cut through fuzzy notions of human existence and moral relativism. They were never meant to be historically accurate portrayals of a person or a time. They are simple stories about courage, redemption, betrayal. They reinforce what we know to be true about human nature, that it’s hopelessly wicked, in need of saving.  

    

Scott Eyman writes a fascinating, detailed biography of an American icon and educates the reader about old Hollywood in the process. He lets us see John Wayne the actor, husband, father and businessman. We get the good, bad and indifferent in chunks, told through an illustrious film career. Whether the Duke is an idol or just another actor, you’ll understand how John Wayne became a genuine piece of Americana.

I like this quote from the reporter in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, “This is the West Sir, when the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

And so it is we print the legend. . . and hang it on the wall.

Movies on the Lawn

I went to watch Field of Dreams last night with two friends. We sat outside on the massive lawn at dusk and watched the white screen at the Philbrook Museum. I know the film pretty well. I watched in 89 (as a kid) when it came out and I’ve seen it probably a few dozen times since then. We watched from a couple of blankets laid out on the grass like kids camping out on in the back yard, gulping sugary drinks and munching snacks. 

We arrived a little late. Mostly because my friends ordered cocktails and watched the bartender search for the right bottles. He explained that he was just filling in. Normally he worked at another place. It showed. With a confused look on his face he opened fridges and dug under sinks and shuffled items on the counter in a futile attempt to locate grenadine. He never found it. He apologized and we took the concoction he made outside where the movie had already started.

The biggest mistake was not bringing a chair; it was miserable trying to find a comfortable way to sit. I’m not a kid so sitting cross legged with my face in my hands isn’t really an option. Neither is laying down on the blanket or propping up on an elbow. I’ll get comfort for about 2 to 3 minutes and I have to adjust. Chairs aren’t just a better idea they’re necessary for anyone over 30. Not to mention we sat near the back. Such is the case when you arrive late and don’t dare go tip toeing across a settled mass of people cursing you out as you stand in their line of sight. Being on a blanket when everyone else is on a chair forces you to look skyward, people loom overhead obscuring your view to the screen. The woman in front of me kept raising her arms and resting her folded hands on top of her head. I had to look through the triangle shaped view she made with her head and arms. Luckily I was all too familiar with this movie. My discomfort made me count the minutes until Kevin Costner has a catch with his dad and the lights go out to reveal a line of passing cars headed for the farm house with the ball field.

As we left for the night, blankets in hand and looking for a trash can and an exit, we reminisced about drive in movies. That’s kind of what movies on the lawn are, drive in theaters without the cars. I never liked drive-ins though. I didn’t dare spoil the mood with my friends but my recollection of drive in movies is noisy neighbors and poor sound. The staticky speaker we had to attach to the car window like a food tray at Sonic didn’t project sound. I’m sure they’re better now. If you don’t bring lawn chairs (again with the chairs?) you sit in the car and our cars were never that comfortable. I always noticed people nearby sprawled on the hood of their vehicles. There were too many in the family station wagon for that to be practical for us.

I'm not much fun sometimes.

I’ll have to visit the Philbrook when they have special exhibits next time. We did poke around for about 20 minutes in a few of the rooms. You really need to look around if you haven’t before. Most of the art is priceless due to its age and condition. Some of the paintings dated back to the early 19^th century. Obviously they aren’t for sale. A photographer’s work from Conde’ Nast was displayed in a corner room for traveling exhibits. In all they were probably 25 to 30 images of famous artists, politicians, athletes and actors in black and white along the wall. I walked through pretty quick, nothing really jumped out at me. I’m never sure what to do at art galleries. How do I appreciate something that a very talented individual put time and effort into? Is there more to do than stare, admire and move on? Do I need to have an opinion that transcends mundane observations like “Huh, Joan Crawford eh?” Is there some piece of appreciation just floating over my head that I’m unable to grasp?

I probably didn’t spend enough time looking at the pictures. I’ve read that a good photo captures the emotion of the subject, their fears or inhibitions. You can really see it this famous one of a dust bowl migrant. I’ve seen some great old photographs of large families with a patriarch in the center awkwardly holding a toddler who looks as though the old man might crush her. Sometimes the space between figures suggests emotional distance. No one likes to cram in for pictures and force a smile, less so with an invisible barrier of isolation. These hardscrabble families on the prairie had to have gritty determination to tear up rough soil for planting and suffer through crop failures and bad weather. A sensitive pioneer wouldn’t fare well. Their harshness is understandable.

 I don’t get much out of the studio shots and hyper-real close ups. I’m open to have my mind changed but they seem too staged, magazine ready and lifeless. 

Without a connection to either the subject being shown (people or places) or to the one taking pictures, I’m less interested. At some level we all appreciate greatness though. Field of Dreams is a classic but we don’t need to know anything about baseball or farming to get why it’s a great story. We needn’t realize the complexity of putting a film together, shooting and editing, seeking out locations and raising money. What is the core of the story? reconnecting with dad. The ball field and financial problems, the dream world of old baseball players like Shoeless Joe is just the yarn. We understand lost connection between father and son.

Next time they show a movie I’ll get there early and spend some time really looking at the paintings and photography first. I’ll bring a chair too.

30 Years Since the Massacre

June 4, 2019 represents the 30 year anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

 I was always led to believe it was a gathering of students from universities around the country to demand democracy. The communists that run that country got fed up and ordered the Army to roll into the square and start shooting. That’s an oversimplification but close to the mark. The protests began with students but brought in people from all over the country and held in other cities, not just Beijing. The demonstrations began after the death of a popular reformer named Hu Yaobang. They quickly evolved into a genuine call for democratic change with a list of demands that students wrote up. Hu Yaobang died in April and the troops marched on the city in June.

The students pushed for greater openness but the movement was disorganized lacking unified aims and leadership. Initially some demanded to speak to the premier (Li Peng). When he didn’t show they began a hunger strike. Protesters were selected at random to carry messages to government officials. Often they were ignored or patronized. A famous editorial circulated in the People’s Daily (the official news outlet) that called the movement “anti-government” and hinted that the students were guilty of insurrection. It was a clumsy move that angered more of the Chinese and increased support for the students. No one thought it was anti-government to want a voice in the future of the country. Even if the cluttered mass of people spilling on the square had different ideas about reform, no one argued to overthrow the Communist party.

I get the sense that the protest was too big to be unified. It was never clear throughout the 6 weeks who was in charge, who were officials supposed to talk to? Only one of the demands had to do with democracy: “Affirm Hu Yaobang’s views on democracy and freedom as correct”. Another demand wanted higher pay for ‘intellectuals’.  They demanded press freedom. They wanted salaries of communist party official made public. Nothing is wrong with any of these demands. But the party officials were growing tired of month long protests, demonstrations, hunger strikes and emotional calls for this or that. 

 It’s impossible to really know what the communist party leaders were thinking behind the scenes. It’s not like they hold press conferences. They keep a tight lid on internal strife and power politics. Officials don’t leave the politburo and write tell all books exposing dirty laundry of their enemies. It helps to understand that the leadership operates through factions. Alliances form because of loyalty among individuals. Similar to an American company CEOs like to work with those they’ve worked with before, who can be trusted. But alliances also form along ideological lines. Unlike corporate America the loosing factions don’t face show trials for corruption on national TV.

 The stakes are very high.

Alliances led by Deng Xiaoping wanted a swift end to the demonstrations at Tiananmen without giving up anything. A high level meeting with the visiting Gorbachev was moved to the airport since the students occupied the square. This embarrassed Deng no doubt. Alliances that were sympathetic to the protesters were led by Zhao Ziyang (General Secretary). He was against calling for martial law but lost the battle to the enforcers like Jiang Zemin. This conflict eventually led to a purge of reformers like Zhao after the Army rolled into Beijing and killed a lot of what remained of the demonstrations.

No one knows exactly how many were killed but estimates range from a few hundred to a few thousand. It’s hard to get numbers from a party that tries harder to deny the existence of the massacre. Not that they really know anyway.

Most foreigners recognize June 4, 1989 as the day China turned the Army on its own people.

Chinese censors try every year at this time to erase the memory of the brutal crackdown. They block websites that mention anything in relation to the day the tanks rolled. The international condemnation was swift. The Communist government lost a lot of foreign investment it desperately needed. So what lessons were learned by students, citizens and democracy advocates? How did the party change after this?

Crackdowns are swift and brutal.  From illegal churches to online dissenters, the long arm of the state moves quickly. The government allows protests and even radical demonstrations, as long as the victims are foreign embassies or foreign companies. In this way the angry ‘masses’ are allowed to vent frustration without challenging the legitimacy of the CCP. An inherent trade-off exists on the mainland, prosperity for compliance. As long as China keeps its population working and its economy growing they won’t bother with this democratic ‘silliness’. So far the structure has held together well enough, longer than a lot of foreigner observers thought. But no one really knows when a spark could ignite another round of rebellion.