Category: General

Reviews of films treating the assassinations of the 1960s, their historical and political context and aftermath, and the investigations conducted.

  • The Unheard Tapes: Part 2

    The Unheard Tapes: Part 2


    see Part 1

    Cassettes 37 & 45: Robin Thorne, George Cukor’s Nurse

    I must confess to a certain confusion regarding Robin Thorne’s testimony, both its content and its purpose. What does the testimony actually reveal? Additionally, the testimony is not exactly accurate.

    If George Cukor, who directed Let’s Make Love along with Marilyn’s final, but incomplete, movie, actually thought very highly of Marilyn, he chose an odd manner of exhibition. According to biographer Gary Vitacco-Robles, Cukor engaged in an act of sabotage while filming Something’s Got to Give. The director told Fox executives, after watching prints of Marilyn’s scenes, he considered her acting inferior. She absentmindedly floated through her performance, Cukor asserted, on a drug or an alcohol induced cloud, possibly both. Cukor’s sabotage, combined with Marilyn’s frequent absence from the set due to illness, and her appearance at President Kennedy’s May 1962 birthday gala, prompted Fox to terminate her employment. Citing breach of contract, the studio sued both Marilyn and Marilyn Monroe Productions for financial redress in the amount of $750K.

    What followed was a scorched earth attack by 20th Century-Fox Film Corporation against the movie star that had earned the movie makers many piles of money. And based on evi­dence that was hidden by Fox in a vault for practically four decades—nine hours of exposed film and production documents—the studio’s campaign to ruin Marilyn’s career, using any and all means available, including false accusations and labeling her completely insane, was unnecessary and unsupported by all the evidence available at that time. But following two weeks of defending their decision to fire Marilyn, Fox withdrew their lawsuit and quietly reinstated her, partly due to intervention by former studio head Darryl Zanuck, but primarily because Dean Martin, the male lead and Marilyn’s friend, refused to proceed without her. Martin would not make the movie with any other actress. Marilyn finally agreed to return to the movie set starting in October, for which the studio agreed to more than double her salary. She wanted George Cukor replaced with Jean Negulesco, who had directed How to Marry a Millionaire. The studio agreed; but unfortunately, due to Marilyn’s untimely death, she never returned to the set of Something’s Got to Give.

    Cassette 18B: Angie Novello

    According to the accepted mythology involving Marilyn and her telephones, the Attorney General, once he succumbed to romance, provided the actress with an exclusive telephone number: a private line directly into his office at the DOJ. They talked constantly, walking around with sixties vintage telephone receivers hooked to their mouths and their ears. As usual, not one tiny fragment of evidence ever existed that confirmed such silliness, but that fact did not matter to the many authors that promoted the private telephone line mythology. The well-known fact that Marilyn and Robert Kennedy conversed via the national telephone wires became proof that the celebrities were lovers and gave the conspiracist writers another way for a heartless Robert Kennedy to reject and humiliate his movie star paramour—he extinguished her private line—giving an angry Marilyn another reason to retaliate and, also to dramatically get back at the AG, to threaten his exposure in the press. Angie Novello’s twenty seconds worth of testimony established for Summers that the actress and attorney general communicated by telephone, but it should be noted that Angie intercepted the telephone calls routed to the attorney general through the DOJ’s switchboard, RE7-8200. If Marilyn knew Robert Kennedy’s private number, why didn’t she use it? That is an obvious question never posed by Summers or any other conspiracist.

    With the release of Marilyn’s 1962 telephone records for the months of April through July—the ones allegedly confiscated and then destroyed by the LAPD, the FBI, and the Secret Service—Marilyn placed a grand total of six telephone calls to Washington, DC, to the above noted Justice Department number. She called RE7-8200 initially on June the 25th, twice on July the 2nd, once on July the 16th and twice on July the 17th. Three of her conversations lasted one minute, two lasted two minutes, and one of her July the 2nd conversations lasted five minutes. According to Donald Spoto, Marilyn used the call of June the 25th to confirm that Robert Kennedy would be “at the Lawfords’ on Wednesday evening [June 27th] and to invite him and the Lawfords to visit her home for a drink before dinner.” During that call, Marilyn spoke with Angie Novello. Not one person alive today knows the identity of the person to whom Marilyn spoke during the other calls to the Justice Department.

    Many of Robert Kennedy’s friends and advisers over the years confirmed that the AG and Marilyn were telephone buddies. Edwin Guthman confirmed that Marilyn called the DOJ several times over the summer of 1962 and spoke with Robert Kennedy, who was interested in Marilyn’s life and her many problems. According to Guthman, the attorney general was not a man inclined to chit chat or idle talk with anybody; and so his tele­phone conversations with Marilyn were invariably short and concise. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. also confirmed that Marilyn called the attorney general, noting that Marilyn usually called Robert Kennedy when she was troubled and also noting that Angie Novello, who, I repeat, intercepted Marilyn’s telephone calls, talked to the actress more than the attorney general.

    During a 1984 interview, Angie stated that the AG, when he was unoccupied, always accepted Marilyn’s telephone calls. If he was occupied, he returned her calls as soon as he could, if time allowed. Marilyn was, after all, Marilyn! Angie also remarked dur­ing the interview that Robert Kennedy was a sympathetic person, aware of Marilyn’s many problems. He was also an excellent listener. In Angie’s opinion, that is exactly what Marilyn needed the most: a sympathetic ear. The content of those conversations between Marilyn and the attorney general remain unknown; but they are often characterized, by those with a vested interest, as impassioned conversations between impassioned lovers, as if those offering such a characterization actually know or knew. As if they, too, were involved in the dialogue flying with the speed of light from coast to coast.

    Finally, Angie also remarked that actress and singer Judy Garland was a close friend with whom RFK spoke frequently; but not one person has ever suggested that they were involved in a love affair. Why is that so? The answer is obvious.

    Cassette Unnumbered: Natalie Trundy

    The evening of August the 4th in 1962 was slightly cooler than normal. So, Arthur Jacobs, Marilyn’s publicist, along with his fiancé, the actress Natalie Trundy, attended a Ferrante and Teicher concert in the Hollywood Bowl. According to Natalie, just before the concert was scheduled to end at 11:00 PM, an usher arrived and informed Jacobs that Marilyn was either dead or close to death. Therefore, according to Natalie’s account, Marilyn died sometime prior to or slightly after 11:00 PM on August 4th.

    According to Natalie, Jacobs left almost immediately, drove to Fifth Helena Drive where he conferred with some persons who were already at the hacienda. Jacobs left the hacienda only after a few minutes of conversation. A few days later, Arthur told Natalie that the situation at Fifth Helena Drive was horrendous. Natalie admitted to Donald Spoto that Jacobs never provided any details, commenting only that it was too dreadful to discuss; and Natalie never asked for details: her knowledge of what transpired that morning was, therefore, limited, an inarguable fact.

    I would be remiss if I failed to note that Natalie Trundy’s testimony qualified as hearsay and it could not be corroborated by interviewing Arthur Jacobs. He died from a sudden heart attack in 1973.

    Cassette Unnumbered and 126A: Ken Hunter and Walt Schaefer (respectively)

    The tape recording of Ken Hunter was not the product of an interview conducted by Anthony Summers. The district attorney’s lead investigator, Al Tomich, conducted the Hunter interview; but Summers did not make that perfectly clear before he played the tape. The Hunter interview, and then Walt Schaefer’s interview generally began an unfolding of what has come to be designated “The Ambulance Theory.” During the years following Marilyn’s death, this theory has been continually retold—and has been reshaped with each retelling. It has appeared in many complex iterations, involving many persons: Peter Lawford, Pat Newcomb, Dr. Ralph Greenson, and, in one super imaginative scenario, the attorney general, who, along with Peter Law­ford, rode in the ambulance with the dying movie star, only to be returned, along with the movie star’s corpse, to Fifth Helena Drive.

    However, Summers’ presentation of The Ambulance Theory implied that Ken Hunter, the former ambulance man, contacted the Los Angeles County District Attorney. Ken Hunter, along with Walt Schaefer, became parts of the theory’s evolution, but Hunter was not the first former ambulance man to contact the district attorney—and, in fact, Ken Hunter himself did not contact the DA’s office. Though Summers did not provide any context relative to calendar dates, the initial contact with the LADA’s office arrived in 1982. This was at the start of the LADA’s threshold re-investigation into Marilyn’s death. The former ambulance man asserted that his name was Rick Stone. Even­tually, Stone revealed that his actual name was James Hall, a desperate man on a pecuniary mission. Hall needed to rescue his family from financial troubles by selling a Marilyn Monroe story that involved him and an ambulance. The former ambulance man asserted that he would share his astonishing ambulance story with the district attorney’s investigators only if appro­priately compensated for any incurred expenses. More about Ken Hunter and James Hall will appear later.

    Cassette HH: John Sherlock

    Evidently, John Sherlock was a reporter. In Goddess, Anthony Summers identified his source as such, “Significant corroboration that an ambulance was called came following the publication of this book’s first edition from reporter named John Sherlock.” Sherlock also appeared in the book that allegedly closed Marilyn’s case, written by Jay Margolis and Richard Buskin. They identified Sherlock as an American writer and noted that:

    a documentary featuring Anthony Summers surprisingly endorsed Walt Schaefer’s and Murray Leib’s original testimony via a key player the night [Marilyn] died. American writer John Sherlock relayed what his friend Dr. Greenson had told him.

    The television tabloid program, Hard Copy, known for its use of dubious material, produced the referenced “documentary” in 1992.

    Amazon lists four books written by a John Sherlock, published during a seven-year interval between 1981 and 1988. However, Amazon does not have any information about the writer. I have not been able to learn anything at all about John Sherlock, which means I have not been able to confirm, as alleged by Margolis and Buskin, that Sherlock was, in fact, Dr. Green­son’s friend. Despite the concussive quality of Sherlock’s testimony, it is gross hearsay. And Sherlock is not mentioned in any of the books about Marilyn in my possession other than the two mentioned above, not even Donald Wolfe, who often repeated hearsay testimony, mentioned Sherlock. Perhaps Sherlock’s hearsay was even out there for Wolfe.

    I admit that I am a skeptical person; and regarding stories about Marilyn Monroe’s death, I am a complete, almost a querulous cynic. Primarily because I have uncovered more fabrications, prevarications, con­tradictions, and downright lies about that sad event than Carter’s got little liver pills. So, I am more than incredulous when I read or hear secondhand, uncorroborated statements, particularly one purporting that Dr. Ralph Green­son, while seated at table during a luncheon in 1964, or thereabouts, simply volun­teered, admitted that he was in an ambulance transporting Marilyn to a hospital when she died. And that the ambulance merely reversed course and returned Marilyn’s corpse to her bed at 12305 Fifth Helena Drive, which is unquestionably a story that should have generated several hundred questions never asked by either Sherlock or Summers. I’ll pose but one: Did Dr. Greenson whisper his story to Sherlock so any person seated nearby would not hear it?

    Cassette 18A: Bill Woodfield

    Photojournalist Bill Woodfield was an acquaintance of Marilyn’s. She invited him to photograph the swimming pool scene on the set of Something’s Got to Give, Marilyn’s final but unfinished movie. Woodfield and another photojournalist, Joe Hyams, also an acquaintance of Marilyn’s, doubted that she had committed suicide, or Woodfield so alleged. As a result of their doubt, the photojournalists claimed that they investigated the circumstances surrounding the movie star’s death, an investigation that included a retired police officer. A rumor that a helicopter had been dispatched to and landed on Santa Monica beach early Sunday morning, August 5th, prompted the investigation, certainly an abbreviated one: the investigation endured for slightly more than three days.

    Woodfield claimed that he saw a helicopter log when, on August 8th, the day of Marilyn’s funeral, he visited Hal Conners’ Helicopter Service: a ser­vice frequently employed by Peter Lawford and other celebrities. The random act of journalism, for which Summers expressed his respect during Woodfield’s interview, was the purported discovery of that log. There is only one prob­lem: Woodfield did not obtain a copy of the mysterious log. It has never been published. It has never been seen by anyone other than Bill Woodfield. There is no tangible evidence or verifiable proof of any kind that this helicopter log ever existed.

    Additionally, in Goddess, Summers noted that the rented helicopter landed to collect a passenger and then to deliver that passenger to the main Los Angeles airport. According to Woodfield, the log confirmed Robert Kennedy’s presence in Los Angeles on August 4th and his departure from Santa Monica Beach by helicopter during the early morning hours of August 5th. Clearly confirmed? Precisely how? Not at any time did Summers or Woodfield, or anybody else for that matter, assert unequivocally that Robert Kennedy’s name was written on that helicopter log. It appears as if Woodfield or Summers made a quantum leap from “passenger” to Robert Kennedy. It appears that Woodfield, or someone conveying the story, simply assumed Robert Kennedy to be the passenger.

    Additionally, the testimony attributed to Woodfield in the 1985 version of Goddess is apprecia­bly different than the testimony attributed to Woodfield in the 2012 version. Also, none of Woodfield’s taped testimony, as presented in the Netflix movie, appeared in the 1985 version of Goddess. Yet, according to Summers’ source notes, he interviewed Woodfield in 1983 and 1984. Furthermore, based on Summers’ 2012 source notes, the investigative jour­nalist did not re-interview his photojournalist source following the original interviews. And Wood­field died twenty-one years ago.

    In the 1985 version of Goddess, Summers quoted Woodfield as follows:

    The time in the log was sometime after midnight—I think between midnight and two in the morning. The booking is a blur in my memory now, but it was definitely in the name of either Lawford or Kennedy. (emphasis mine)

    This is an odd use of the word definitely, at least in my opinion, considering that Woodfield’s recollection was definitely not definite. But then, according to Goddess 2012, Woodfield reported this: “The time in the log was sometime after midnight—I think between midnight and two in the morning. It showed clearly that a helicopter had picked up Robert Kennedy at the Santa Monica Beach.” Odd. Why the difference? No attempt to explain or account for the contradictory statements Summers attributed to Bill Woodfield. And I repeat: Woodfield died twenty-one years ago, before the revision. Furthermore, why did Summers exclude the testimony of Woodfield’s partner, Joe Hyams? The author’s source notes indicated that he interviewed Hyams in 1983, 1984, and 1985. Did Summers fail to tape record Woodfield’s partner? Likewise, Summers asserted in Goddess that he interviewed the retired policeman who assisted Woodfield and Hyams with their investigation. But Summers did not reveal anything about the policeman’s testimony, neither in Goddess nor the Netflix movie. We are left to speculate regarding why Summers excluded the policeman’s testimony.

    The story appertaining to Conners’ helicopter log is complex, convoluted, and lengthy. It involves two other chopper pilots who flew for Connors in 1962, James Zonlick and Ed Connelly. Zonlick was Conners’ chief pilot. During Summers’ interviews with both pilots, they repeated for Summers what they recalled Conners had told them in 1962. According to Zonlick, Conners stated that he had picked-up Robert Kennedy at Santa Monica Beach and delivered him to the Los Angeles International Airport. Ed Connelly testified only that Conners talked about landing on the beach without the aid of landing lights. Summers then reported that Zonlick could not remember the exact date of the Robert Kennedy flight Conners had mentioned. And likewise, Connelly could not pinpoint the date of the flight that Conners had mentioned to him. So, the exact dates of those flights have never been confirmed. And by the time Summers interviewed Zonlick and Connelly, Hal Conners was already dead. Zonlick believed, however, that the trip to collect and deliver Robert Kennedy occurred during the right time frame, probably during the latter half of 1962, meaning what, exactly? That Conners might have flown Robert Kennedy during the months of June, July, August, September, October, November, or December of the year? Not exactly compelling evidence or proof that the Conners’ flight with Robert Kennedy actually occurred on August 5th, 1962.

    At any rate, the pull quote from Woodfield’s taped testimony is this: “Find out where Bobby Kennedy was that weekend.” Well, in fact, Summers did find out where the attorney general was that weekend; but those niggling facts do not appear in the Netflix movie. Those facts will appear in this commentary later. But now, suffer a brief biography of Bill Woodfield.

    Woodfield’s first true love was magic, along with hypnosis. In 1946, at the age of eighteen, the fledgling magician and hypnotist founded a newsletter that he described as a trade paper for magicians, Woodfield’s Magicana. He only published two issues. In September of 1947, The Conjuror’s Magazine featured a condensed version of Woodfield’s first two issues. Then, from January of 1948 until April of 1949, Genii Magazine featured a total of sixteen articles written by Woodfield. It became painfully clear that he could not support himself with magic or hypnosis. He turned to photography as the mid-fifties approached, a profession he left in the mid-sixties when he began to write for several television series, the most important of which was Mission: Impossible. Along with his writing partner, Allan Balter, Woodfield has been credited with changing the story lines of Mission: Impossible, while also incorporating scams and complex cons into the methods used by agents of the Impossible Missions Force to defeat their adversaries. The Big Con, written by David Maurer, became a guide for Woodfield and Balter as they prepared plot lines and scripts. A con devotee, Woodfield often referred to him­self as an apprentice cheat, meaning a con artist in training. It is entirely possible, I would suggest, that Bill Woodfield’s helicopter log story was a scam, his version of the big con. Keeping in mind, once again, that the helicopter log has never been published, posted or—for the record—seen.

    Cassette 77: Harry Hall

    Summers identified Harry Hall as a Law Enforcement Informant, as if that title suggested a category of professional endeavor that a fellow might declare on a job application. Former Employer: Law Enforcement. Position: Informant. While at the Beverly Hilton Hotel on January 24th in 1984, Summers interviewed law enforcement’s informant. Summers wanted to learn if Hall had learned anything about Bobby Kennedy’s movements the weekend Marilyn died. Hall replied that he:

    had heard, on good authority, that the Saturday that this happened—the day Marilyn died—Bobby had come into town. Bobby was in town and supposedly left. And when I say I heard it, I heard it from a federal agent, an FBI agent that nei­ther Hall nor Summers deigned to identify. (emphasis mine)

    Summers questioned Hall regarding a possible FBI investigation into Marilyn’s death. Did the FBI investigate what actually happened? What the FBI performed, according to Hall, was not an investigation as much as it was a “hush-hush,” a cover-up orchestrated by Robert Kennedy: “He was the Attorney General of the United States,” Hall reported, “so he could have the FBI do anything.” Besides, the attorney general had to protect the president, and as a result, “they had done everything to hush this up.” One question: if Robert Kennedy could have FBI agents jump at his beck and call, do anything for him, why, then, did he and Pete Lawford need to rely on Fred Otash, as is often reported, to sweep clean, to sanitize Marilyn’s hacienda?

    Summers did this throughout Goddess; repeating hearsay testimony from Los Angeles Police Department informants while also relying on persons of authority: former mayors, for instance, police chiefs, or others identified as agents of various authorities, to re­peat hearsay testimony, such as Mayor Sam Yorty. And like the testimony offered by Harry Hall, none of Summers’ other testifiers could offer a firsthand sighting of Robert Kennedy in Los Angeles on August 4th, 1962. There is an invariably ignored, but nonetheless overwhelming, reason why this is so, which I will discuss later. Also, not only was the testimony offered by Harry Hall hearsay, but it also represents illogic, one that appeared in the testimony of both Reed Wilson and Jim Doyle, whose testimony will appear in sections following hereafter.

    Cassette 28: Reed Wilson

    The taped testimony of Reed Wilson was presented by Summers, and his Netflix producers, primarily to confirm two aspects pertaining to Marilyn’s purportedly mysterious case:

    1) Fred Otash procured dozens of salacious tape recordings on which Marilyn and the middle Kennedy brothers could be heard engaging in sexual activity; and

    2) Robert Kennedy traveled to Los Angeles on August 4th, 1962.

    According to Summers’ exposition, he was advised on more than one occasion that he needed to have to talk with Reed Wilson, “renowned in government and business circles as one” terrific snoop. And yet, Reed Wilson’s name does not appear anywhere in the Marilyn canon, not in her legitimate biographies and not in the many publications that promoted a murder orthodoxy—at least, perhaps I should clarify and qualify, not that I have been able to discover. For an example, Matthew Smith, wrote two books about Marilyn, and her secret tapes, and did not mention Reed Wilson. Additionally, and notably, in the 2012 Kindle edition of Goddess, Reed Wilson does not even receive a mention by Summers. We are left to ponder: why? To maintain secrecy? Reed Wilson was still among the living in 2012, living in Solvang, California, at the age of eighty-three years. By that time, Marilyn had been dead for fifty years, John Kennedy for forty-nine and Robert Kennedy for forty-four. Reed Wilson lived until 2015.

    Of course, the main problem with Wilson’s testimony is his assertion regarding Robert Kennedy’s location on that Saturday in 1962. While Wilson did not assert that the AG visited Marilyn, he asserted that Robert Kennedy telephoned Marilyn from Peter Lawford’s beach house. But then, the following question seems more than pertinent: why would Marilyn’s former lover travel to Los Angeles only to telephone her from Lawford’s beach house? He could have telephoned her from Washington or Hyannisport or Fairbanks, Alaska. At any rate, Robert Kennedy’s location on that Saturday is more than just a niggling issue for Anthony Summers and one he chose to ignore. That ignored issue will appear again later.

    Cassette 93B: Eunice Murray

    The taped testimony offered by Eunice Murray, at least the testimony included by Summers, appeared to confirm that Robert Kennedy visited Marilyn on August 4th. But, on the show, Summers did not ask Eunice if Robert Kennedy visited on August 4th: the term the author used was “that day,” along with “that afternoon.” We know that Robert Kennedy visited Marilyn, accompanied by Pat and Peter Lawford, on the 27th of June in 1962. Eunice Murray recounted the attorney general’s brief visit on that Wednesday for biographer Donald Spoto. The Lawfords arrived at Fifth Helena that afternoon to collect Marilyn, and Robert Kennedy was with them: Marilyn wanted them to see her new home. After a brief tour of Marilyn’s humble hacienda, the group proceeded to the Lawford’s beachside mansion for a dinner party. That June visit, residential tour and dinner party was the fourth and final meeting of Bobby and Marilyn. The rumor of a fifth meeting at Fifth Helena Drive, based on an unsubstantiated story by photographer Lawrence Schiller, has never been confirmed.

    Even though Mrs. Murray asserted that “the Kennedys were a very important part of Marilyn’s life,” an assessment that can be interpreted many ways, Mrs. Murray also admitted that she “wasn’t included in this information.” To what “information” was she referring? If she lacked information, how could she know just how important the middle Kennedy brothers were to Marilyn, despite being a witness to “what was happening.” And what exactly was happening? Evidently, Anthony Summers did not ask Mrs. Murray for any specifics and she did not volunteer any. Likewise, her comment pertaining to the activation of Robert Kennedy’s protectors was equally vague and lacked specificity. But it seems like vagueness was what Summers wanted. Additionally, the taped testimony offered by Summers did not represent the totality of Mrs. Murray’s statements about Marilyn and Robert Kennedy. Those specific declarations will appear later in this commentary.

    Cassette 106: Jim Doyle

    James Edward Doyle began his career with the FBI following WWII. He received special training at Quantico, Virginia, which prepared him to function as an Organized Crime Specialist. According to his obituary in the Capital Journal, Pierre, South Dakota, where Doyle was born and raised, he spent most of his FBI career in Indiana and Illinois, and then later, in Nevada and New Mexico. In 1979, while serving in the FBI’s Albuquerque Office, he retired from the FBI and founded his own investigative company, James Edward Doyle Investigation (JEDI). After operating JEDI for twenty-nine years, Doyle retired and relocated to Henderson, Nevada. He died in 2019 at the age of ninety-four. His obituary noted: “Jim’s FBI stories with the likes of Frank Sinatra, JFK, William Randolph Hearst, and Marilyn Monroe, to name a few, could be made into movies!” His friends considered Jim to be “the best storyteller ever.” Sadly, the forty seconds of Doyle’s taped testimony that Summers selectively included in his Marilyn movie did not include any of Doyle’s movie-worthy stories, the ones involving JFK and Marilyn. We are left to wonder about those stories: with what could the best storyteller ever have regaled us?

    Summers posed the following question to Doyle: “As far as the actual records being removed, you were aware of that from your colleagues (emphasis mine)?” Doyle answered: “O yeah. Yes. This happened.” Doyle did not offer any exposition and Summers did not ask about the nature of the removed records. Also, based on Summers’ question and Doyle’s response, it is clear that the FBI agent learned about the alleged record removal from his colleagues. Summers, therefore, passively accepted hearsay testimony, possibly even second or third hand hearsay; but Doyle’s closing statements raise many pertinent questions: “I was there at the time when she died,” an assertion that can only be interpreted one way. Jim Doyle was inside Marilyn’s hacienda at the moment of the movie star’s death, certainly an incredibly explosive assertion that Summers evidently did not even pursue. Why? But then Doyle reported an equally explosive occurrence: “There were some people there that normally wouldn’t have been there.” Agents, bureau people. Doyle did not mention any names and Summers did not pose any probing questions. Was J. Edgar Hoover there? Clyde Tolson? Who was there? Doyle then informed Summers that these Bureau people, who normally would not have been there, due to their elevated position in Hoover’s fiefdom, one assumes, arrived immediately, “before anybody even realized what had happened,” one of the more remarkable assertions I’ve ever heard about the night of Marilyn’s death; and I’ve heard some real doozies. Summers’ lack of curiosity re­garding what Doyle actually asserted was and is remarkable, to say the least.

    Summers included Doyle’s testimony as confirmation that agents, FBI people, materialized at Fifth Helena Drive in order to confiscate information that compromised the middle Kennedy brothers and proved that they were romantically and sexually involved with the World’s Sex Symbol. But a major illogic is lurking in the testimony of both James Doyle and Harry Hall.

    A Well-Known Fact and the FBI Protection Illogic

    Certainly, during the last nine months of her life, Marilyn associated with the middle Kennedy brothers and they with her. She initially met Robert Kennedy at a well-attended Lawford dinner party. As was well-known, Marilyn and the attorney general talked on the telephone several times during the summer of 1962. The actress initially met the president at a thousand dollar a plate fund raiser in Manhattan. Then, observed by Bing Crosby’s other guests and the Secret Service, for one night in late March of 1962, Marilyn and John Kennedy shared a bungalow on the crooner’s desert estate. Marilyn and the president met one last time in May at Madison Square Garden where Marilyn delivered her sultry rendition of “Happy Birthday to You.” Several members of the Kennedy clan attended the president’s birthday gala, including Robert and Ethel Kennedy, accompanied by a large live audience of fifteen thousand. Other celebrities also performed that Saturday night; members of the press were there; and more than a few television stations reported on the Manhattan event in real time. In short, Marilyn’s association with John Kennedy and his younger brother was a well-known fact. No amount of documentation could have been removed from Marilyn’s home after she died to alter that fact. Since rumors of romantic entanglements had already begun to circulate even before Marilyn’s death.

    As far as I know, the middle Kennedy brothers never commented publicly on Marilyn’s tragic end. Their silence has been used as evidence that each brother was guilty of having an affair with the world’s symbol of easy sex. But then, in 1962, the president’s job did not include acting as a bureaucratic ointment available to soothe the anxieties caused by every tragedy that occurred. Certainly, the president and the AG knew that anything they said about Marilyn’s death would have been promptly misconstrued, would only have served as a potent fertilizer fomenting more suspicion, speculation, and rumor. Besides, they and their advisors also must have known this old idiom: you cannot unring a bell.

    The fact that Tony Summers included the statements of Harry Hall and James Doyle about the FBI allegedly covering up Robert Kennedy’s part in the death of Marilyn Monroe showed a lack of balance; plus an eagerness to accept the most illogical and ahistorical kind of testimony. For instance, that somehow there were FBI agents on the scene of her home in the early morning hours of August 5th, which no credible author has ever noted. But the idea that J. Edgar Hoover would go to such lengths in order to protect the middle Kennedy brothers over something like a conspiracy to conceal a ruinous affair runs contra to just about all we know about Hoover. FBI Counter-intelligence chief William Sullivan, for one, said his boss, J. Edgar Hoover, tried to inflame rumors about an affair between Bobby Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe. The problem was, neither the boss nor his minions could find any evidence of an affair.

    Why did Hoover want to do this? Because Bobby Kennedy was the only attorney general who actually acted like he was Hoover’s boss. He could do so since his brother was the president and Hoover knew they did not want him there anyway. For instance, Hoover wanted to do next to nothing on civil rights, but Bobby Kennedy pushed that agenda. And even at that, Hoover would not reveal undercover information that could have prevented bloody violence during the Freedom Rides. (See Irving Bernstein, Promises Kept, p. 64) When Hoover tried to circulate a very negative memo about Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy ordered him to withdraw it.

    When President Kennedy went up against steel executives in 1962, FBI agents served the subpoenas in the wee hours of the morning, not because Bobby wanted them to, but because that was when he called Hoover. Finally, to say the least, Hoover was reluctant to pursue the Mob, whereas Bobby was obsessed with that cause. (David Talbot, Brothers, p. 141) Hoover would have performed none of these actions on his own. He was a racist, was unperturbed about Mob influence, and was beholden to wealthy patrons. Hoover got back at the Kennedys by doing things like spreading rumors about the president and Ellen Rometsch, a reputed East German spy working out of Washington. When ace researcher Peter Vea discovered the raw FBI reports on Rometsch, there was nothing in them about an affair between her and the president. Bobby Kennedy once said that he thought Hoover was something of a psycho. (Talbot, p. 143) The enmity was mutual. FBI official William Sullivan said the two people Hoover hated most were RFK and King, in that order. As Hoover biographer Curt Gentry has noted, if such information about Monroe was available, Hoover would have used it against Bobby. And what is the denouement to this tale? As everyone knows, once John Kennedy was assassinated, Hoover pulled the private telephone line out of Bobby’s office. The testimony of Hall and Doyle is rather at odds with this record.

    Rick Stone, Walt Schaefer, Ken Hunter and the Ambulance Yarn

    On an unlucky Friday in 1982, August the 13th, just as the LADA started its threshold re-investigation into Marilyn’s death, Deputy District Attorney, Ronald H. Carroll, received a telephone call from a man who called himself Rick Stone. “Rick” identified himself and inquired if the LADA might be interested in purchasing some information about the death of Marilyn Monroe. The re-investigation’s summary report, published in December of 1982, clarified that Stone initially contacted the district attorney’s office on Wednesday, August 11th; and thereafter, using the Rick Stone code name,

    he telephonically contacted this office several times. Ultimately, he attempted to sell information to the District Attorney’s Office relating to his observations at the death scene on the morning of August 5, 1962, at Marilyn Monroe’s home.

    Eventually, Rick Stone disclosed his actual name, James Hall, a former ambulance attendant who had driven for the Schaefer Am­bulance Service in 1962.

    According to Hall’s narrative, he and his partner, Murray Liebowitz had been dispatched to Marilyn’s during the early morning on August  5th, 20 years earlier, sometime between the hours of 4:00 and 6:00 AM. When he and Liebowitz arrived, Hall informed Ronald Carroll, Marilyn was still alive, but very near eternity. Hall/Stone then said that as the two attendants began their resus­citation efforts, she started to respond. A doctor then appeared and ordered Hall and his partner to stop. From his black bag, the doctor produced a long hypodermic and injected Marilyn directly into her heart with an unknown liquid, which immediately killed her. Such was the mind-boggling story James Hall relayed to the deputy district attorney. But as explosive as it was, Carroll declined to pay Hall for his testimony. So, Hall sold his story to The Globe, a super­market tabloid, for $40K. In fact, obtaining payment for his ambulance yarn was Hall’s primary goal, a fact confirmed by recorded telephone conversations between Hall, Ronald Carroll, and Alan Tomich, Carroll’s lead investigator. As an aside, $40K is approximately equal to $123K in today’s currency.

    Walt Schaefer initially contradicted Hall’s story and denied that the attendant even worked for Schaefer Ambulance Service, but Walt eventually recanted his refusal and acknowledged Hall’s employment. He told the fib, he explained, because he feared the all-powerful Kennedy clan would retaliate and ruin his thriving ambulance business. The ambulance service owner also initially testified that the attendants dispatched that night in August were, in fact, Ken Hunter and Murray Liebowitz. Obviously hoping to unravel what was becoming a complicated tale, the LADA located Ken Hunter and obtained his testimony. According to the Summary Report:

    Since Mr. Hall’s statements have surfaced, another person, a Mr. Ken Hunter, has been located who claims to have been an ambulance driver who responded to the Monroe residence in the early morning hours of August 5, 1962.

    In the Netflix movie, Summers asserted that he had learned about Ken Hunter, “former ambulance man,” who had “contacted” the district attorney’s office, and “he said that he’d been aboard an ambulance that had gone to Marilyn Monroe’s house that night.” Hunter’s story appeared to corroborate Walt Schaefer’s story: one of Schaefer’s ambulances had transported a comatose Marilyn Monroe to Santa Monica Hospital during the early morning hours of August 5th. But, as I stated earlier, Ken Hunter was not the first “former ambulance man” to contact the district attorney; and in fact, Ken Hunter did not actually contact the district attorney’s office, as denoted by Summers—not ever. As I stated above, James Hall contacted Ronald Carroll. The film presented only a small fraction of the Hunter/LADA interview /conversation. What follows is a transcription of the interview as presented in the Netflix movie:

    LADA:  What happened?

    Hunter: What do you mean?

    LADA: Did you go into the house?

    Hunter: Yeah.

    LADA: Did you see Monroe’s body?

    Hunter: Yeah. She was on the bed.

    LADA: Do you recall if she was on her back or her stomach?

    Hunter: Side.

    LADA: She was on her side.

    Hunter: Yeah.

    What follows is a transcription of the actual Hunter/Tomich interview:

    Tomich: What happened?

    Hunter: What do you mean?

    Tomich: I mean what occurred?

    Hunter: Well, I don’t know. Nothing really occurred. She was dead and they wouldn’t let us take her. The morgue came and took her.

    Tomich: Did you go into the house?

    Hunter: Yeah. I believe so.

    Tomich: Did you see Monroe’s body?

    Hunter: Yeah.

    Tomich: Where was it at the time?

    Hunter: Umm. She was on the bed. Hanging off the bed…something…I don’t recall.

    Tomich: Do you recall if she was on her back or her stomach?

    Hunter: Side.

    Tomich: She was on her side.

    Hunter: Yeah. I believe she was on her side. Umm. Yeah, it seems to me she was on her side.

    Tomich: Did either one of you touch her body?

    Hunter: No, I didn’t.

    Tomich: Do you know if your partner did?

    Hunter: Seems to me he did.

    Tomich: Do you know what he did?

    Hunter: He checked her just to see if she was dead or what and I think she was…I think she was pretty cold at that time…Well, she was blue and then…the throat you know like she…like I said that she’d been laying there a while, you know what I mean?

    Tomich: She was blue. Any particular portion of her body?

    Hunter: Umm I think…I don’t…I don’t really remember if it was her neck or her side, you know. that she was laying on or what it…but it seemed to me like—well, let’s put it this way: I could stand across the room and tell that she was dead.

    Tomich: OK. Umm. Let me relate a story to you that we’ve received information from a person that…an ambulance attendant was summoned to the residence…when the ambulance attendant and his partner arrived the only person there was a female standing outside screaming and that the attendant went in and found Marilyn Monroe on the bed, removed her from the bed and began CPR or closed chest message and that in the process of doing this that she started to come around and, you know, regain consciousness and a doctor came in and plunged a needle into the area of her heart and thereafter pronounced her dead. Does that sound familiar at all?

    Hunter: Well, that’s bullshit.

    Tomich: OK.

    Obviously, the tape as presented was an edited version. Also, according to Hunter, the story related by James Hall and, by extension, also Walt Schaefer, was false. During his interview with Vernon Scott, published by the AP on October 5th, 1985, Milt Ebbins as­sert­ed that the story of an ambulance arriving which transported Marilyn to the hospital was a complete fiction. Even though Ken Hunter could not remember the exact time that he and Liebowitz arrived at Fifth Helena, when they did, the cops had already arrived and Marilyn had already expired. The police would not let them take Marilyn’s body. It is important to note here that California statute prohibits an am­bulance from transporting a corpse. And Hunter clearly stated that “the morgue came and took her.” Hunter’s reference to the morgue’s arrival suggests, that while he and his partner were there, morticians Don and Guy Hockett arrived to collect Marilyn’s body. Therefore, Hunter and his partner arrived at Fifth Helena either slightly before or slightly after 5:45 AM. Eventually, however, Ken Hunter and his partner departed in an empty ambulance.

    In the Netflix movie, Summers asserted: “And what’s more I found no less than seven members of Schaefer Ambulance who corroborated the notion that she had been carried that night.” (emphasis mine) Once again, the word notion suggests an imprecise recollection. And yet, Summers did not present the testimony of even one of the seven and did not reveal who those “seven members of Schaefer Ambulance” might have been. Meaning, of course, their al­leged corroborative statements about a “notion” could not be investigated.

    Finally, the “ambulance yarn” was the product of James Hall’s imagination, not the imagination of Ken Hunter, but, since Summers did not delve into Hall’s fabrication, neither will I. One significant fact should be clear, though, The Ambulance Theory as presented by Summers and Netflix was neither complete nor exactly accurate. In fact, the use of Hunter’s testimony to confirm Walt Schaefer’s assertion—that Marilyn’s body was removed from her house and transported to a local hospital by an ambulance that night—put an elliptical twist on the fact that Ken Hunter’s testimony directly contradicted James Hall’s testimony. But, if I might be allowed to employ a form of paralipsis, I will not mention that Hunter’s testimony directly contradicted Walt Schaefer’s testimony as well.

    The Kennedy Family at the Bates Ranch

    On Friday afternoon in Chicago, August 3rd, Robert Kennedy boarded an American Airlines flight connecting from Washington, DC. The attorney general joined his wife, Ethel, and his four eldest children, Kathleen, eleven years old, Joseph II, ten years old, Robert Jr., eight years old, and David, seven years old. The American flight proceeded to San Francisco where the Bates family awaited their weekend guests. John Bates, Sr. then drove the group southeast from San Francisco to Gilroy, a pleasant two hour and fifteen minute drive into the picturesque Santa Cruz Mountains. From Gilroy, they drove an additional twenty minutes west to the Bates Ranch located just north of Mount Madonna. The Ken­nedy family spent the entire weekend with the Bates family on their bucolic ranch. The preceding account is an irrefutable fact.

    Also on the flight was the FBI’s liaison to the attorney general, Courtney A. Evans. An FBI file no. 77-51387-300, written by Evans, memorialized the Kennedy’s weekend excursion:

    The Attorney General and his family spent the weekend at the Bates ranch located about sixty miles south of San Francisco. This was strictly a personal affair.

    Evans noted as well, that he continued into San Francisco once the attorney general and his family were on their way to Gilroy. How the Bates family and the Kennedy family occupied themselves during the remainder of Friday has never been revealed. Also, there are no indications that other FBI agents were on the American flight from Chicago to San Francisco.

    In the 1985 print version of Goddess, Summers mentioned the Kennedy family’s visit to the Gilroy ranch. But exactly how the families occupied themselves on Saturday, August 4th, would not be revealed for eight years, appearing finally in Donald Spoto’s 1993 Monroe biography. Individuals at the Bates ranch on Saturday testified that the families rose early; and after a hearty breakfast, a group that included Robert Kennedy occupied them­selves by riding horses to Mt. Madonna. That equine jaunt, according to John Bates, Sr., consumed most of the morning. They returned to the ranch, where the afternoon included a BBQ, swimming, and a game of touch football. Due to the ranch’s rolling, hilly terrain, the participants had to locate a spot with a relatively level topography. That search required a group hike up to the top of the ranch, which consumed two hours round trip. After the football contest, the group enjoyed more swimming; and then, after the children had been cleaned and dressed for dinner, as they appeared outside, the attorney general tossed each of them into the swimming pool, which, of course, required a drying and re-dressing. Once the children had been fed and put to bed, the adults enjoyed a peaceful dinner. The conversation during dinner focused predominantly on a speech the attorney general would deliver to the American Bar Association in San Francisco on Monday, August 6th. According to John and Nancy Bates, dinner ended at approximately 10:30 PM, after which the fatigued adults retired.

    John Bates, Sr. and Nancy along with John Bates, Jr. and Roland Snyder, the ranch foreman, testified on more than one occasion that Robert Kennedy never left the ranch during that fun-filled Saturday. More importantly, though, a group of ten photographs taken that day clearly depicted each activity as described by the Bates family and clearly confirmed that Rob­ert Kennedy was at the ranch all day. He was an active participant in all the day’s activities; therefore, how could Eunice Murray—how could anybody for that matter—contend that Robert Kennedy was in Brentwood on August 4th and visited Marilyn not once, but twice: In the afternoon and then later that night. It is mystifying indeed, since any absence by Robert Kennedy during that day would have been immediately noticed by any and all present, particularly Robert Kennedy’s children.

    During the years following Marilyn’s tragic death, Eunice Murray sat for several interviews pertaining to Marilyn’s life, her relationships, and the events of August 4th. Her interview with Anthony Summers was only one of several; and she often contradicted what she told Summers. She also published a memoir.

    In 1973, to the Ladies Home Journal and The Chicago Tribune, Eunice reported that Robert Kennedy did not appear at Fifth Helena on August 4th, a position that she also maintained in her 1975 memoir. During an interview with Maurice Zolotow, published by the Chicago Tribune on September 11th, 1973, Mrs. Murray asserted that the stories about Marilyn and Robert Kennedy were “the most evil gossip of all before declaring: It is not true that Marilyn had a secret love affair with Mr. Kennedy…and I would tell you if it were so.” She recalled the Wednesday visit in June of 1962, when the attorney general, accompanied by the Lawfords, “came to see the house,” finally adding that Marilyn “certainly didn’t go sneaking around with Mr. Kennedy and have a love affair with him.” When asked directly by Zolotow if Bobby Kennedy was “in the house that Saturday night,” Eunice answered: “No.” After Zolotow posed the same question about Peter Lawford and Pat Newcomb, Eunice answered:

    No. Absolutely not. There was nobody in the house that night except me and Marilyn. The doors were locked. The gate was shut. The windows locked. The French window in her room locked.

    Ten years later, however, with the arrival of Anthony Summers, and after several denials, somehow Mrs. Murray changed her story: the attorney general, she said, had been there that Saturday afternoon. Then, in 1986, Marilyn’s former housekeeper made a similar declaration to a Marilyn researcher by the name of Roy Turner.

    And yet, in the previously referenced 1985 article written by Vernon Scott, Lawford’s manager and friend, Milt Ebbins, shared the following:

    I talked to Peter on the telephone several times that night. He never left his beach house in Santa Monica…Bobby definitely was not in Southern California that night and neither man went to Marilyn’s house…How could Bobby be in town that night? He was in Northern California with his wife and children.

    And, yet again, on October 6th, 1985, The South Florida Sun-Sentinel published a UPI article that generally discussed Eunice Murray’s testimony to Anthony Summers during the original 1985 documentary based on Goddess. According to the article, however, during an interview with the magazine Picture Week, then a new weekly publication by TIME, Mrs. Murray, eighty-two years old at the time,

    refused to repeat her ac­count of Kennedy’s alleged presence in the house…According to the Sun-Sentinel article, Mrs. Murray admitted: Once in a while, everything becomes confused. I am confused.

    Is it not entirely possible that a confused Eunice Murray erroneously translated Rob­ert Kennedy’s 1962 June visit into August?

    However, the contingent at the Bates ranch that August weekend never expressed any type of confusion or changed their testimony. In fact, Roland Snyder stated emphatically:

    They were here all weekend, that’s certain. By God, he wasn’t anywhere near LA—he was here with us; and John Bates, Jr. recalled: I was fourteen at the time and was about to go off to boarding school. I remember Bob [Kennedy] teasing me about it, saying, “Oh, John, you’ll hate it!” The senior Bates told Spoto: I remember Bobby sitting with the children as they ate and telling them stories. He truly loved his children.

    Since Summers did not include the firsthand, consistent testimony of the Bates family and Roland Snyder in his Netflix movie, should we therefore assume that the investigative journalist never interviewed them? It is clear, however, that he did. In Goddess, Summers announced: “Questioning of the Bateses aside, further checks on Kennedy’s time at the ranch are difficult. The weekend arrangements were private.” Summers’ rather curious out-of-hand dismis­sal of the testimony from persons who were actually with Robert Kennedy that August week­end, simply because he could not, he insinuated, otherwise confirm Robert Kennedy’s real-time locations, is difficult to comprehend, even considering the author’s self-evident agenda. And without any hesitation, in an effort to prove Robert Kennedy traveled to Los Angeles on August 4th, Summers repeated more than a boatload of uncorroborated, hearsay testi­mony from more than a boatload of witnesses.

    Additionally, in Goddess, the author dampened the testimony offered by the senior John Bates—scant testimony that Summers only offered in paraphrase.

    Bates thought everyone went horseback riding together sometime on Saturday, Marilyn’s last day alive, Summers wrote and then offered some additional rephrasing: He [Bates] believed he would have known if Kennedy had left for long enough to reach Los Angeles and returned by the early hours of Sunday (emphasis mine)

    Of course, John Bates, Sr. would have known if Robert Kennedy left the ranch for several hours, just like everyone there would have known; and having Robert Kennedy return to the Bates Ranch by early Sunday morning, August 5th, was a significant requirement: the group attended an early morning Mass in Gilroy, an event on which the Gilroy Dispatch reported. On August 6th, the local newspaper printed a brief article entitled “Robert Kennedys Visit Local Ranch.” After commenting on the attorney general’s Monday speech, the article noted:

    Kennedy, his wife, and four oldest children have been the guests of Mr. and Mrs. Jack Bates of Piedmont at their Gilroy ranch on Sanders Rd. They are expected to leave tonight when they fly on to the Seattle World’s Fair. Sunday morning, the Kennedys attended 9 o’clock mass at St. Mary’s Church in Gilroy.

    In a letter that John Bates, Sr. wrote to Bruno Bernard in 1985 regarding the ten family photographs taken that Saturday, mentioned previously, and published by Susan Bernard in 2011, the senior Bates was very emphatic about what happened during that entire day. What about regarding the horseback jaunt that Summers insinuated the senior Bates was unsure had even happened? Well, a photograph of the group mounted on horses and his statement about the event clearly suggests that Summers was being—well, let us say, a bit obfuscatory? And it’s an obfuscation that is difficult to comprehend. For, the pictures on horseback are right there in Susan Bernard’s Marilyn: Intimate Exposures on page 186.

    The more significant issue is this: why did Anthony Summers exclude the firsthand testimony of John Bates, Sr., Nancy Bates, John Bates, Jr., and Roland Snyder? The parents that August weekend were still alive when the 1980s began. Since they did not appear in the Netflix movie, we can only assume that Summers did not bother to interview them. Or what about the Kennedy children? In late 1982, Kathleen would have been 31 years old, Joseph II would have been 30, the junior Robert 28, and David 27. The importance of what the Kennedy children could have clarified, before the passing of many more years like a cudgel blunted their memories, cannot be overstated. However, giving Summers the benefit of a doubt, should we conclude that the investigative journalist requested an interview, but all four of Robert Kennedy’s children refused? But then, Summers has never even mentioned the Kennedy children.

    To put an end to the discussion of where Robert Kennedy was on August 4th, 1962, if not to a moral certainty, then certainly beyond a reasonable doubt, Robert Kennedy did not visit Marilyn on August 4th, 1962. Not once, much less twice. The Bernard book proved that beyond question.

    But for a moment, let’s accept, as has been suggested by various conspiracist authors, that Robert Kennedy left Gilroy sometime after 10:30 PM, after he and his wife, Ethel, retired for the night. If Natalie Trundy’s account of that Saturday evening is factual, then Marilyn was either dying or already dead at 11:00 PM, most certainly by 12:00 AM. Ignoring all the various problems associated with Robert Kennedy’s departure from Gilroy, his travel time to 12305 Fifth Helena Drive would have required at least 3.5 hours by helicopter—considerably longer by car. He could not have appeared in Marilyn’s home before 2:00 AM on August 5th. That is, if he left immediately after dinner, which must be considered doubtful since his wife would have known about his departure. At any rate, Natalie Trundy’s testimony notwithstanding, forensic factors, like Marilyn’s liver temperature at autop­sy, indicated that Marilyn died before Robert Kennedy could have arrived at Fifth Helena. And if she was not dead, then she was certainly comatose, a nonresponsive body. Therefore, the assertions by many individuals regarding Robert Kennedy’s appearance at 12305 Fifth Helena Drive on the night of Marilyn’s death, regardless of the time asserted that the attorney general appeared, must be summarily dismissed. Robert Kennedy could not have telephoned Marilyn from Peter Law­ford’s beachside mansion; he could not have visited her and engaged her in some type of argument leading to a physical scuffle. The preceding facts are as clear as the water in an Irish mountain brook. Nothing could be more clear.

    On March 21st of this year, Megyn Kelly interviewed Robert Kennedy, Jr., a mere six decades after the events of 1962 and, to her credit, she broached the topic of Marilyn Monroe. Robert Jr. admitted: “There’s not much I can tell you about Marilyn Monroe.” But Megyn Kelly pressed the issue: “The rumors are that she had an affair with your dad, that she had an affair with your uncle, and even possibly that your dad was somehow there the night that she died out in California.”

    Robert Jr. responded as follows:

    Those are rumors that have been time and again proven completely untrue. There’s two days…my father’s schedule, every minute of his day is known. So people know where he was every moment of the day and it happens that the day that they say that my father, you know, that these people who are selling books and these things…the day that they say my father was with her he was with us at a camping trip up in Oregon and northern California and it would have been impossible for him to be there, though that was the day she died. O, and all the days that people, that these authors, who are just bogus authors, who have suggested, who are making money by, you know, saying these things, all the days that they claim my father could have been with Marilyn Monroe are days when we know exactly where he was, and he was on opposite sides of the country from Marilyn Monroe.

    Unfortunately, Megyn Kelly then lapsed into the same fallacious argument employed by many persons who suffer from faulty reasoning and engage in hasty generalizations based on weak analogies: since allegedly John Kennedy was an inveterate philanderer, then his brother must have been as well. But then, many of Robert Kennedy’s friends and associates have asserted over the years that he was disinclined to engage in extramarital activities, a fact about his character that I have already noted and will expand in the section following hereafter.

    The Devout Middle Kennedy Brother

    In 1973, Norman Mailer published his biographical novel starring Marilyn Monroe. Concealed within Mailer’s lavender prose and his frequent flights of whirligig rhetoric, he of­fered the following proclamation:

    If the thousand days of Jack Kennedy might yet be equally famous for its nights, the same cannot be said of Bobby. He was devout, well married, and pru­dent.

    An interesting but baffling defense of Robert Kennedy, considering that Mailer would then proceed to accuse the attorney general of spending time between Marilyn’s smooth satin sheets, imbibing in a heady, clandestine romance that would end in her death. Mailer insinuated that Robert Kennedy either sanctioned Marilyn’s murder or was involved in it. Still, and despite Mailer’s failure to explore it, an adjective in the quoted defense cannot be ignored: devout.

    Whatever one wishes to say about John Kennedy’s promiscuity today, his younger brother might be diagnosed a religion addict. Evidently, he and his wife, Ethel, displayed religious figurines throughout their McLean Virginia home: the Virgin Mary, for instance, and St. Francis, the saint from which Robert’s parents took his middle name. Also, Robert and Ethel not only prominently displayed the Catholic Bible at Hickory Hill, they actually read it, frequently aloud to their children, in whose bedrooms Ethel displayed crucifixes and holy water. The family prayed in the morning, before and after each meal and before bedtime, sometimes as a group and sometimes individually. Catholic custom and religious ritual was a significant part of family life within the home of Robert and Ethel Kennedy, even more significant than religious fealty and piety had been in the home of Rose and Joe Senior. But then, sixty years ago, religion, particularly Catholicism, was not the pariah it has become.

    Robert Kennedy’s faith and his religious beliefs often found its way into his speeches; and according to Paul Kengor, Robert Kennedy “was the most devout among the Kennedy boys. Those closest to him considered him a prayerful Catholic…” Biographer Ronald Steel speculated that if Robert Kennedy had been “born into a poor family without a power-hungry patriarch driving the boys into politics, he might have been a priest.” Steel described Robert Kennedy’s religious ideology as a “fierce brand of Irish Catholicism” and that the attorney general was in his heart—and always was—”a Catholic conservative deeply suspicious of the moral license of the radical left.” Robert Kennedy did not “embrace the drug culture and sexual permissiveness of the ‘60s.” Even Jacqueline Kennedy once commented that “Bobby never misses Mass and prays all the time.”

    Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. offered the following:

    [Robert Kennedy] lived through a time of unusual turbulence in American history; and he responded to that turbulence more directly and sensitively than any other political leader of that era. He was equipped with the certitudes of family and faith—certitudes that sustained him till his death. But they were the premises, not the conclusions, of his life.

    Finally, regarding the attorney general’s deportment, Ken O’Donnell and David Powers noted the following hallmark: “Always he was the kindest man we ever knew.”

    Certainly, I am not naïve enough to believe that being devoutly religious would preclude an occasional misstep, would preclude succumbing to a flirtation leading to a romantic temptation leading to a violation of a man’s marital vows. But certainly, also, devotion to one’s religion, devotion to one’s faith would engender a serious and effective internal argument against committing such transgressions, would diminish the inclination, perhaps even the desire, to engage in forbidden liaisons. According to several of Robert Kennedy’s friends, and Richard Goodwin, advisor to both John and Robert Kennedy, the attorney general, unlike the president, was temperamentally disinclined to engage in extramarital activities, even with the beautiful and sexy Marilyn Monroe. A fellow could advance the argument, then, that having an affair with a man disinclined to do so would have been virtually impossible, even for the one and only Miss Monroe. Robert Kennedy’s devotion to his religion, to his faith, is an inherent quality of his life-style, his personality, and character that cannot be ignored, even though the Marilyn Monroe conspiracists have, as they transmogrify the kindest man we ever knew into a philandering heartless man capable of suborning murderer.

    Final Comments

    The boast often proclaimed by Anthony Summers to extol his Marilyn pathography is this: his research for Goddess included one-thousand interviews, six-hundred and fifty of which Summers tape recorded. However, in his Netflix movie, Summers included a mere twenty-seven of the recorded interviews. Of the interviews Summers tape recorded, six-hundred and twenty-three, the vast majority, remain unheard. An inquiring mind would immediately ask several questions. What, for instance, is the testimony on the vast majority of the still unheard tapes? According to Marilyn biog­rapher Gary Vitacco-Robles:

    In Netflix, Summers omits interviews which contradict the interviews he chose to include…He uses interviews to support Kennedy was at Peter Lawford’s house on August 4th; however, he interviewed all of Lawford’s guests that night and all reported Kennedy was not there.

    A case in point is the tape recording of Summers’ interview with Milt Ebbins. That tape exists. Several persons have heard it. Along with all of Summers’ tapes, the Ebbins tape is housed at the Margaret Herrick Library in Beverly Hills, California. Why was that interview excluded from the Netflix flicker show? Also, it is painfully clear that at least one tape presented by Summers had been edited, and that tape was not the product of a Summers conducted interview. It was the product of an interview conducted by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office. So, this imperative question follows: had any of the other tapes been edited especially for inclusion in the Netflix movie?

    Moreover, it should be obvious, and also troubling, that Summers withheld, excluded testimony from witnesses who actually knew Marilyn and, unlike Arthur James, could prove they knew her. Pat Newcomb would be a case in point. Others would be Ralph Roberts, Norman Rosten, and Whitey Snyder, Marilyn’s personal make-up artist. According to Summers’ source notes, he interviewed all of the preceding persons. Did he fail to tape record those interviews?

    But even more egregious than excluding the testimony of the preceding persons, and more than a few others, is the exclusion of the incredibly relevant, first-hand, eye-witness testimony of the Bates family and Roland Snyder, all of whom spent that early August weekend with the Kennedys. And dare I even mention the exclusion of the Bates family photographs, ten of them, that memorialized and created a historical record of what happened at the Bates Ranch on Saturday, August 4th. Thus creating a documentary record that Summers did not even deign to mention, much less pursue. Those photographs have been available since 1962; and Susan Bernard published them in 2011. Anthony Summers, investigative journalist, has had at least eleven years to locate those photographs and then disclose their existence to the public. Actually, he’s had a full four decades. If the purpose of the movie was to present the facts, then why was essential and pertinent information withheld?

    A fellow could accuse Summers of engaging in tactics that resemble a suppression of evidence fallacy regarding Robert Kennedy’s appearance at Fifth Helena Drive that tragic Saturday. Regarding that guileful legerdemain, he has been more than successful: every journalist and movie critic who reviewed the movie reported categorically that Robert Kennedy visited Marilyn on the day she died—when categorically he did not. But then, the media in general appears to have been completely confused by the Netflix movie: one journalist even asserted that the Los Angeles County District Attorney asked Summers to perform the threshold re-investigation into Marilyn’s death, a completely incorrect assertion.

    During the past few weeks, I have read a considerable amount of opinion about what a documentary should be, should encompass, and for what it should strive. Needless to say, I encountered several differing opinions. One commentator even rejected the precept that a documentary had to necessarily present the truth; but another noted:

    Within the context of wondering about the responsibility of filmmakers in delineating fact from fiction, the topic of documentary filmmaking itself ends up under fire. Documentaries, by definition, must be non-fiction. Commentary and opinions are allowed, but misrepresentation is not.

    Despite what some persons might think, the preceding definition is a self-evident requirement of a documentary film; but then the commentator added: “…some documentary film­makers now aim for commercial success when they create a film and their films are in fact fictionalized to some extent through misrep­resentation and omission.” In that case, any film or movie featuring “misrepresentation and omis­sion” cannot be labeled a documentary; and the preceding assessment leads to this assessment: The Mystery of Marilyn Monroe: The Unheard Tapes is not a true documentary. It is a sensationalized melodrama featuring dramatized pantomime by unidentified actors, a cheesy and distracting tactic one reviewer noted; and viewers are treated to maudlin music and grimy film-noir-like cinematography. The sensationalized melodrama is the result of Summers’ repeated suggestions that perhaps Marilyn’s death was the result of activi­ties much more diabolical than suicide—Question marks. Dig, dig, dig. Over two years. Hollywood, Los Angeles, the bugging, the eavesdropping. Had she been murdered? John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Jimmy Hoffa. Rumor. White House files, FBI files. Honesty. Minute after minute, Summers appeared to be building a prima facie case in preparation for the dramatic reveal: the dastardly and nefarious middle Kennedy brothers, but primarily Robert Kennedy, who visited Marilyn on the day she died, had her murdered to silence her: she simply knew too much.

    Then at the seventy-eight-minute mark, Summers announced: “So, I’m not at all of the mind of the loony people who write books saying she was murdered.” I must confess, when I heard Sum­mers’ reference to “loony people who write books,” my chin promptly thudded against my hardwood floor. And then Summers announced:

    There have been several conspiracy stories. There are people, on very thin evidence, I think largely made-up evidence, who suggest that people wanted to hide the precise circumstances of her death because Marilyn was murdered…I did not find out anything that convinced me that she had been deliberately killed.

    Summers certainly rivals Norman Mailer’s use of paralipsis on a narrative scale, in which the novelist indulged himself with insinuation and innuendo, theories of conspiracy to the point of tedium before finally admitting that Marilyn more than likely took her own life. And Mailer’s Kennedy narrative, like Summers’ Kennedy narrative, ends up fundamentally incidental, most certainly speculative with a foundation of paper mache—but created by whom? Anthony Summers has contributed a large volume of literary smog to the mythological legend of Marilyn Monroe, particularly to the mythology of her purported affairs with the middle Kennedy brothers, the mysterious tapes, helicopter logs and ambulances; and the dreary, dismal Netflix movie was yet another eruption of that smog.

    Even though one reviewer noted that the Netflix movie was just “too touch-and-go, too speculative about Marilyn Monroe’s life and mysterious death, to be of any genuine purpose,” I suggest the production had multiple purposes. Providing Anthony Summers’ with a stage to present his most recent version of the truth was a purpose; keeping the legend and the purported mystery of Marilyn Monroe extant, readily available, was also a purpose. But another purpose was allowing Summers to transform the narrative from one of murder into one of a hush-hush cover-up orchestrated by a reprehensible and morally bankrupt political royalty, the Kennedys. “The key to the events surrounding her end,” Summers wrote in Goddess, “lies in the word ‘scandal’”—and scandal is a gaping excavation from which the sparkly twinkly jewels of insinuation and speculation can be mined almost without end, the actual truth notwithstanding. But then, ironically, as Marilyn said at the beginning of the movie: “true things rarely get into circulation. It’s usually the false things.”


    Sources

    Barris, George. Marilyn: Her Life In Her Own Words. Citadel Press: Kensington Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition, 2012.

    Chaplin, Jr., Charlie. My Father Charlie Chaplin. New York: Random House, 1960.

    Churchwell, Sarah. The Many Lives of Marilyn Monroe. New York: Metropolitan Books. Kindle Edition, 2004.

    Guilaroff, Sydney, as told to Cathy Griffin. Crowning Glory: Reflections of Hollywood’s Favorite Confidant. Sydney Guilaroff Enterprises, 1996.

    Mailer, Norman. Marilyn: A Biography. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1973. Kindle Edition 2011.

    Marshall, David. The DD Group: An Online Investigation Into the Death of Marilyn Monroe. Lincoln: iUniverse. Kindle Edition, 2005.

    Monroe, Marilyn, with Ben Hecht. My Story. New York: Taylor Trade. Kindle Edition, 2007.

    Robinson, Jr., Edward G. My Father, My Son. New York: Frederick Fell, Inc. 1958.

    Rosten, Norman, Marilyn: An Untold Story. New York: Signet, 1973.

    Schlesinger, Jr., Arthur M. Robert Kennedy and His Times. New York: Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Fortieth Anniversary Kindle Edition, 2018.

    Spindel, Bernard. The Ominous Ear. New York: Award Books. 1968.

    Spoto, Donald. Marilyn Monroe: The Biography. New York: Harper Collins. Kindle Edition, 1993.

    Strasberg, Susan. Marilyn and Me: Sisters, Rivals, Friends. New York: Warner Books, 1992.

    Sullivan, William C. The Bureau: My Thirty Years in Hoover’s FBI. Toronto: George McLeod Limited, 1979.

    Summers, Anthony. Goddess: The Secret Lives of Marilyn Monroe. New York: Macmillan, 1985.

    —. Goddess: The Secret Lives of Marilyn Monroe. New York: Open Road Integrated Media. Kindle Edition, 2012.

    Taraborrelli, J. Randy. The Secret Life of Marilyn Monroe. New York: Grand Central Publishing. Kindle Edition, 2009.

    Vitacco-Robles, Gary. Icon: The Life, Times and Films of Marilyn Monroe, Volume 1, 1926 to 1956. Albany: BearManor Media. Kindle Edition, 2013.

    —. Icon: The Life, Times and Films of Marilyn Monroe, Volume 2, 1956 to 1962 & Beyond. Albany: BearManor Media, 2014.

    Wolfe, Donald H. The Assassination of Marilyn Monroe. London: Warner, 1998.

    —. The Last Days of Marilyn Monroe. New York: William Morrow & Company, Inc., 1998. Kindle Edition 2012.

    Wright, Peter. Coroner’s Cold Case #81128 : Marilyn Monroe. Kindle Edition, 2012.

    Zolotow, Maurice. Marilyn Monroe. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company, 1960.

    Link to the taped interview with Ken Hunter:
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/monroe-investigation-interviews/

    Donald Spoto quoted the Tribune story in his Marilyn biography. From his source notes: P491: They all came over: Eunice Murray, quoted in the Chicago Tribune, Sept. 11, 1973, sec 2, p. 1. “They all came to see the house. She certainly didn’t go sneaking around with Mr. Kennedy and have a love affair with him.”

    RogerEbert.com article written by Nick Allen, 27 April 2022.

    “The 6 most heartbreaking Marilyn Monroe moments from Netflix’s ‘The Unheard Tapes’ documentary” by Joy Saha, 27 April 2022.

    “The Woman Mailer Forgot to Interview,” by Maurice Zolotow. Chicago Tribune. September 11, 1973.

    “Rumors of Plot in Marilyn Monroe Death Abound, But Proof Lacking,” by Vernon Scott. UPI Archives, October 5, 1985.

    “RFK Ended Affair with Marilyn Day She Died, Ex-Maid Says,” UPI. South Florida Sun-Sentinel, October 6, 1985.

    “What’s the difference between a documentary and a docudrama? Does either one have to be true?” by Julia Layton. https://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/documentary.htm

  • The Unheard Tapes: Part 1

    The Unheard Tapes: Part 1


    On several occasions, Marilyn Monroe commented on her friendship scarcity, a sad state of her existence that contributed to her deep, chronic feelings of loneliness. “Alone!” she wrote in a small black notebook, circa 1951, “I am alone—I am always alone, no matter what.” In the recently aired Netflix production starring Marilyn, twenty-eight minutes and thirty seconds into the proceedings, she declared, during a taped interview, that she did not enjoy many friendships. “It’s just that…I like people,” she ex­plained, “but for friends, I like few people.”

    And yet, evidently, the movie star was friends with practically every human being walking the streets of Earth; and not just the nondescript garden variety sort of friend, but the variety of friend with whom she felt comfortable sharing the intimate secrets and details of her life, odd, to say the least. Marilyn was usually reticent about her personal life. She was not inclined to share intimate secrets with anyone. Marilyn was a very private woman. Pat Newcomb, arguably the dearest of Marilyn’s few female friends, commented on at least one occasion that Marilyn was acutely guarded; and it is a well-known fact that she scrupulously defended her privacy. As an example, the photographer Douglas Kirkland, accompanied by two of his assistants, met with Marilyn prior to his late November 1961 photographic session with her. “She seemed to be paranoid about her privacy,” Kirkland reported to biographer Donald Spoto. Marilyn compelled each man to vow that they “would never divulge where she lived.” So, if Marilyn did not maintain many friendships, as she herself confirmed, particularly intimate ones, how does the Netflix movie explain the multitude of purported intimate friends who offered testimony to author Anthony Summers? Well, the movie’s producers simply ignore the problem, the obvious discrepancy and contradiction, and remain mute, no explanation, a common malady with The Mystery of Marilyn Monroe: The Unheard Tapes. The movie and the tapes actually explain precious little.

    Complex is the best adjective to describe Marilyn Monroe’s short life. But as short as her life was, it still consumed thirty-six years and sixty-five days, or three-hundred thousand long hours. The notion that a made for television film with a run-time of one and three-quarter hours might be able to clarify that life, reveal the facts and the truth about it, certainly suggests a certain conceit. Besides, calling a Netflix produced true crime, intended-to-be-a-shock movie, calling such a production a documentary should sound various warn­ing alarms. As one reviewer commented:

    The gigantic streaming service did not invent scandalous or salacious entertainment, but they have the authorship of a content company that churns out such provocative reflections on reality, week by week. Its latest slop, served for an audience of armchair detectives, [is] a special kind of gross.

    The problem is you have to be familiar with the subject matter. Ninety-nine percent of the public which watches this will not be.

    When I first learned that Netflix would be airing a film that intended to reveal some previously unheard tapes obtained by Summers, I assumed the tapes would only be the interviews of this or that testifier obtained by the author during his research prior to writing Goddess. But I also recognized the remote possibility that Summers just might have uncovered and procured one of the missing and mysterious secret tapes: the ones purportedly made by private detectives Fred Otash, Bernard Spindel, and/or Barney Ruditsky, all three of questionable character and honesty. So, in another article that I wrote commenting on an article Summers wrote about his upcoming Netflix flix, I questioned what tapes Summers intended to expose to the public. Would Summers intone, “here are the recordings of real-time conversations between Monroe, JFK, and RFK?” Or would he exclaim, “here are the recordings of real-time love making sessions involving Monroe, JFK, and RFK?” Or would he announce, perhaps, “here is an actual recording of Monroe’s murder?” Unfortunately, I remarked, neither I nor the reader would know the answers to those pertinent questions until Netflix unveiled their new Marilyn flick. Well, the flick has been unveiled, and we now have the answers to those questions.

    The structure of the Netflix movie is relatively simple and straightforward. Anthony Summers played his tapes as actors, dressed in nineteen-eighties style clothes, with appropriate coiffures, pretended to be the person being interviewed and lip synced their testimony. Intercut with the masquerading actors, the director included archival newsreel footage of Marilyn at various events and scenes from selected movies along with some direct quotations from the few interviews Marilyn gave. Of course, Summers offered some commentary about his investigation into Marilyn’s life and her death, but primarily her death and her sex life. Some of the interviewees knew Marilyn, or alleged they knew her anyway; but most of the persons that Summers interviewed, or at least the tapes of interviews that he included in the movie, occupied and operated on the periphery of Marilyn’s life. Several persons who were actually an integral part of her life, Pat Newcomb and Susan Strasberg for instance, persons that Summers interviewed just to mention two, did not receive any airtime, did not even receive a mention. Marilyn’s three husbands, Jimmie Dougherty, Joe DiMaggio, and Arthur Miller did not appear. Finally, of the persons whose testimony Summers presented, only two remain among the living: Arthur James and Joan Greenson Aebi.

    The movie opens on a narrow, lonely stretch of highway as it curves and bends alongside a mountain stream as it cascades and carves a path through the damp and mist laden hills of Ireland. Odd, and even odder still, we are eventually treated to shots of Summers as he plods through the many boxes of stuff he accumulated during his research for his book Goddess. Should I prepare to watch a movie about Marilyn Monroe or Anthony Summers? At least one reviewer perceived the oddity and commented that:

    The narrative within this documentary is more about Summers, to show off the tapes that helped him write his Monroe book…And in terms as crude as this doc is, it’s more or less about getting him on camera to talk about this before he is unable to do so himself…

    “O, uh, I’d like to ask you,” Marilyn inquires of an unknown individual as the movie proper begins, “how do you go about writing a life story?” Summers did not provide any context for her question. Did she ask that question of the author and playwright Ben Hecht, who ghost wrote Marilyn’s unfinished memoir, My Story? The clever editing implies that Marilyn might have phoned and spoke with Summers. Not impossible, I suppose, since Summers was the age of nineteen when Marilyn died, but most certainly an event that did not happen.

    Then Marilyn comments prophetically and explains: “Because…the true things rarely get into circulation. It’s usually the false things.” But Anthony Summers certainly could not be interested in false things, could he? So, like the prophet Daniel, the Irishman strode bravely into the lion’s den with the goal of learning the true things about Marilyn’s life and death, strode bravely into that chatterbox of a place called Hollywood to dig, dig, dig. He did not encounter any fierce lions, though, just a thick brick wall and his digging produced little because the chatterbox of Hollywood was not chattering. So, instead, he tells us: “I did what you always have to do if you reach a dead end: I went back to the beginning.” At this point, Summers begins to—selectively—release his heretofore unheard mélange of tapes.

    Cassette 71A: Al Rosen

    Evidently, Al Rosen was a big-shot Hollywood agent who founded the eponymous Al Rosen Agency. Rosen also advised Summers that he knew Marilyn “very well—that is, in the beginning, you know, when she was a kid.” Marilyn signed her initial Fox contract on the 26th of August in 1946 at the tender age of twenty years. At that time, she was still legally a minor in California, but she had been a wife for four years, recently divorced. Besides, Al Rosen never represented Marilyn, a fact that did not, of course, preclude a possible acquaintanceship. Still, Summers did not tell his audience that Rosen was not Marilyn’s agent.

    Rosen confirmed for Summers that Marilyn and the powerful movie mogul, Joseph Schneck, were lovers. After all, Rosen assured Summers, “Schneck was a human being;” and Schneck was not alone. He was just one of Marilyn’s many human being lovers. Of course, Summers did not report that both Marilyn and Joe Schneck denied that they were lovers. Each maintained steadfastly that their relationship was strictly platonic. Marilyn denounced the rumors circulating through Hollywood that she was Mr. Schenck’s paramour. She called the rumors scurrilous lies. According to Marilyn, the aging producer never solicited her for sex. According to Albert Broccoli, who later produced nine 007 movies, Schneck had kind feelings for Marilyn. She was, after all, a sweet and giving creature. Broccoli also asserted that Marilyn’s wonderful laughter invigorated Schneck: his face brightened when he saw her. All Joe Schneck wanted from Marilyn, according to Broccoli, was her friendship.  But according to Rosen, Marilyn’s name was one of many in the little black books of Hollywood moguls, the names of ambitious starlets who could be had. The reason Summers and Netflix positioned Rosen’s interview at the start of their flick is painfully clear: it’s all about the voyeurism: it’s all about the sex. Still, just how well Al Rosen actually knew Marilyn and when he actually knew her is certainly open to debate. Not one of the many Marilyn biographies that I consulted even mentioned Al Rosen. Hmm.

    Cassette 50A: Gloria Romanoff

    Married to restaurateur Michael Romanoff, Gloria informed Summers that she and her husband knew Marilyn in the beginning, her husband initially during the early forties, a problematic declaration captured by Summers’ cassette recorder. Here’s why. In the early 1940s, Marilyn Monroe did not exist. On June the 1st in 1940, Norma Jeane became a fourteen-year-old junior high school student living with Ana Lower on Nebraska Avenue on Sawtelle. The following year, she became a fifteen-year-old adolescent. At that time, Norma was four years away from Hollywood.

    According to my research, Michael Romanoff was born in Lithuania in 1890 as Hershel Geguzin, but he adopted the name, Harry F. Gerguson. After Gerguson immigrated to NYC, he assumed the flamboyant but fraudulent nom de guerre of Prince Michael Alexandrovitch Dmitry Obolensky Romanoff. During his residency in The Big Apple, according to the New York Times, who labeled Romanoff a peddler and charmer, he wrote a fortune in bad checks, occasionally found himself incarcerated and in Dutch with the INS; but after relocating to Hollywood, Prince Michael became the favorite companion of various movie stars, primarily because of the faux prince’s many vivid and colorful stories, most of which were untrue. Certainly, his famous friends knew that Michael Romanoff was a fraud. In 1941, the peddling charmer opened his eponymous restaurant, seven years before he wed Gloria Lister. We can logically assume, I think, that the faux prince told his new wife Gloria that he knew Marilyn in the early 1940s, and the new wife simply believed her new husband.

    Gloria informed Summers that Marilyn was a generous girl, warm girl, really rather lovable, and one who availed herself of the club and restaurant scene in Hollywood; and Romanoff’s was the place where all the pretty girls hung out. However, according to Marilyn’s unfinished memoir, after she signed her contract with Fox, she spent all of her time and money attending acting classes and several undergraduate classes at UCLA. She hoped to improve her mind; she had precious little time for nightclubs and parties and no money available for restaurants, especially expensive ones like Romanoff’s. The most important endeavor in her life at that time was learning the craft of acting.

    When this Summers’ account of Marilyn’s life arrived at the mid­dle Kennedy brothers, the author asked Gloria if she could recall “just how early she started hearing…about Marilyn and the Kennedys?” Gloria did not exactly answer Summers’ question. John Kennedy spent time in California, she said, “on and off all through the 50s ’cause he had lots of friends here, you know, spending lots of time, you know.” Gloria never said that she actually heard anything at all about John Kennedy and Marilyn. Gloria only confirmed that then US Representative Kennedy spent a considerable amount of time in California with his many friends. John Kennedy’s allegedly frequent visits to California during the fifties proved exactly nothing about him or his younger brother, especially relative to Marilyn, their puta­tive relationships with her, or their putative involvement in her death.

    Gloria briefly mentioned the Lawfords’ 1962 dinner party, which Marilyn and Robert Kennedy attended on the 1st of February, along with many other guests, including Robert Kennedy’s wife, Ethel, Pat Newcomb, Edwin Guthman, and John Seigenthaler. Tony Curtis and his wife, Janet Leigh, also attended, along with members of the media. As Gloria noted, during the dinner party, Robert Kennedy telephoned his father, who had recently suffered a serious stroke; and Marilyn spoke to the aging patriarch. During the course of that same evening, Gloria reported, Marilyn actually danced with the attorney general. John Seigenthaler, Robert Kennedy’s administrative assistant and his friend for most of his political life, noted in a newspaper article: “Yes, Robert Kennedy danced with Marilyn Monroe. So what? I danced with Janet Leigh. Ethel Kennedy danced with Tony Curtis and Bobby danced with Ethel. It was dinner, dancing, conversation—and that was it;” and according to Seigenthaler, Robert Kennedy’s social encounters with Marilyn were just that and nothing more. Besides, Marilyn’s friendly conversation with the ailing Joe Kennedy, Sr., who could barely speak, and her dance with Bobby, proved nothing, except this: any activity, regardless of its innocence, can be transformed into innuendo and used to suggest an ill intent; especially when one is looking for it.

    Cassette 84: John Huston

    In late 1949, John Huston directed Marilyn in The Asphalt Jungle; and the gritty noir officially launched her cinematic career. Eleven years later, he directed The Misfits, Marilyn’s last completed film. During his interview with Summers, the auteur did not provide any new information pertaining to Marilyn’s career, her life, or her death.

    Marilyn and Johnny Hyde were involved in a sexual relationship, Huston confirmed, a well-known fact. Huston confirmed another well-known fact: Johnny was in love with Marilyn. Of course, Summers reduced the relationship to its most ignoble form by asserting that Johnny Hyde was Marilyn’s sugar daddy, a label with a pejorative connotation suggesting that a heartless, gold-digging woman has become in­volved in a sexual relationship with an older man only for the financial benefits. Certainly, Marilyn received some benefits during the year she was with Johnny Hyde; but the main benefit was Johnny’s ability to advance her career: something he wanted to accomplish, to make Marilyn a star.

    Johnny left his family hoping Marilyn would marry him; and he enticed her with his considerable wealth. Suffering from heart disease, Johnny knew that his days on Earth would soon end; and he enticed Marilyn with the promise of a large inheritance. Even though Marilyn often stated that she loved Johnny, she also admitted honestly that she was not in love with him. She also felt sorry for Johnny. And she did not consider her sexual submission to be a transgression: “The sex meant so much to him,” she confessed, “but not much to me.” Guided by her moral compass, she could not marry a man with whom she was not in love. And she also realized that she could not give Johnny the love that he desperately wanted. Joseph Schneck advised Marilyn to marry Johnny for the financial security the wealthy agent could provide. But she ignored Schneck’s advice and refused Johnny’s entreaties and proposals. As the biographer Donald Spoto recognized, this is hardly the behavior of a heartless, gold-digging predator. It seems wrong and unfair to tag Marilyn with such a label. But that is the kind of show this is.

    Summers asked Huston about Marilyn’s decline during The Misfits’ filming. “Very soon we were aware that she was a problem,” Huston asserted. “She’d be late on the set always. Sometimes the whole morning would go by. Sometimes she’d be alright.” Of course, Huston’s comments were but a small part of the actual picture that Summers left unexplored and incomplete. Marilyn endured some hellish conditions while she filmed The Misfits: the oppressive mid-summer heat of the Nevada desert, writer Arthur Miller’s constant script changes, and Huston’s deplorable shenanigans.

    Their marriage essentially over, Miller used the character Rosalyn as an outlet for his bitterness, as a weapon to bludgeon Marilyn and her cinematic career. As these feelings increased, so did his frequent script alterations, often requiring Marilyn to spend many of her nights memorizing new lines of dialogue. Is it not possible that Marilyn’s tardiness could have been caused, on occasion at least, by Miller’s last-minute script re-writes?  Miller’s alterations became so frequent that Clark Gable eventually refused to accept any more of them. And often her director would occupy the director’s chair when he was drunk. Even if relatively sober, he was frequently hung over, resulting in either directorial napping, disinterest, or a display of what his daughter, Angelica, admitted was her father’s mean streak. He would often mistreat his cast. Huston often asked for dozens of retakes, despite the oppressive desert heat and even after Marilyn and other members of the cast were satisfied; but arguably the worst charge attached to Marilyn and The Misfits is the egregious prevarication that her pill addiction and pill abuse alone caused all the production’s problems and a complete shutdown: she had to be hospitalized for detoxification.

    Even before Marilyn arrived in Reno, Huston was already using a credit line established with the Mapes Hotel Casino. In his memoir, Huston soft-pedaled his gambling addiction. He gambled practically every night, he admitted. Huston also admitted that he liked to gamble, to lose, and then recover his losses the following night. But evidently, Huston lost considerably more than he ever won, frequently gambling all night, frequently traveling to shooting locations straight from the casino. Huston amassed a gambling debt of $50K—about a half million today—far in excess of what the casino agreed to allow in terms of credit for not only Huston, but the entire company. In late August, the Mapes Hotel and Harrah’s called the debt. Not long thereafter, the vice-president of United Artists informed Huston that the production’s bank account was empty and ordered the production stopped immediately.

    Recognizing an opportunity to solve his financial problems, Huston telephoned Marilyn’s doctors, alerted them to her pill problem, what Huston termed her precarious behavior and asked them to intervene. On Sunday, August the 28th, her doctors notified Marilyn that production on The Misfits had been discontinued for a week and suggested that she would benefit from a week’s rest, not at her hotel, however, but at a restful private hospital. She agreed and that evening, her doctors admitted Marilyn to the Westside Hospital in Los Angeles. Apparently, Arthur Miller and the movie crew in Nevada were unaware of the unfolding machinations until Frank Taylor, the movie’s producer, convened a meeting Monday morning for the entire production company. During the meeting, Taylor announced that Marilyn was in the hospital after suffering a breakdown. Even Arthur Miller, according to Evelyn Moriarty, Marilyn’s stand-in, was infuriated by the subterfuge. He knew, as they all did, what had transpired. “Of course, she had troubles,” Evelyn admitted: “We knew that, but Marilyn was being blamed for everything.” Huston had exaggerated Marilyn’s condition to cover for his excessive drinking, profligate gambling, and general wastefulness. Evelyn added that, “It was so easy for her to be made the scapegoat.” During the production respite, Huston was able to negotiate for more money.

    Huston’s assertion that he chastised Arthur Miller for allowing Marilyn’s drug abuse appears to be primarily self-serving, if not a fabrication. As an inveterate philanderer, he often twisted the truth to cover his behavior. How could Arthur Miller prevent Marilyn’s drug abuse, considering that her doctors prescribed the pills for her. Besides, it is painfully clear that John Huston did not really care about saving Marilyn Monroe. What he cared about was saving himself. Had Anthony Summers revealed Huston’s contribution to The Misfits’ production problems, then he would have actually revealed some relatively new information. And it would have made Monroe a sympathetic character.

    Cassette 96: Jane Russell

    In 1953, Jane Russell co-starred alongside Marilyn in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. Jane told Summers that Marilyn was very bright and she wanted to learn. Marilyn also worked constantly, Jane reported. Even after long days on set filming, Marilyn would work tirelessly with her dramatic coach: Marilyn wanted to be as good as she could possibly be.

    Jane noted that the co-stars considered themselves to be friends while they filmed Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. But when filming ended, Marilyn departed to create a new group of temporal relationships. Even though Jane would not associate with Marilyn during the nine years preceding Marilyn’s tragic death, her brunette co-star has invariably received the identifier as Mari­lyn’s good friend, certainly an amplification of Jane Russell’s relationship with Marilyn if not an aggrandizement. I’m not sure why Summers included Jane’s testimony. The brunette did not reveal anything new. If anything, she confirmed that Marilyn did not maintain prolonged friendships. But she was a movie star.

    Cassette 92A: Danny Greenson

    Dr. Ralph Greenson was Marilyn’s West Coast psychiatrist and Danny was the good doctor’s only son. While Dr. Greenson treated and enjoyed associations with many of Hollywood’s biggest stars and moguls, by his own admission, Danny was not fond of Hollywood and the people associated with cinema. Danny considered them to be “phonies and narcissistic char­acters.” And he admitted to Summers that he hated them.

    Born in August of 1937, Danny was twenty-three years old when, in early January of 1960, his father began his frequent sessions with Marilyn. When he heard his father was treating Monroe, Danny admitted to Summers, he “was not jumping up and down and cheering.” Due to Marilyn’s inordinate fame, Dr. Greenson had to see her at the Greenson home; and Danny considered that arrangement to be a “bunch of bullshit.” However, after he began to talk to Marilyn, and he began to know her, his opinion of her changed. A friendship developed.

    Danny confirmed for Summers that Marilyn was frequently depressed, a woman with practically no self-esteem, a woman who constantly referred to herself as a lonely waif that nobody liked and about whom nobody cared. Marilyn felt her emptiness as a severe loneliness; and evidently her loneliness and her depressive thoughts were so deeply ingrained that they could not be dis­lodged from Marilyn’s mind, not even by Dr. Greenson or his family. Still, Marilyn was happy on occasion. A photograph of Marilyn with Arthur Miller’s father, Isadore, prompted her to confide in Danny: “this is my happiest period. I was pregnant then.”

    Eventually, Danny recounted how Marilyn had been invited to a Lawford dinner party that would also be attended by Robert Kennedy and other luminaries. Danny recalled Marilyn commenting that she wanted “to have something to talk to him about,” meaning the AG. Danny must have been referring to Marilyn and Robert Kennedy’s second meeting, which occurred on February the 1st in 1962. Danny helped Marilyn develop some questions that she jotted down on a piece of paper and put in her purse. At that dinner party, she posed those questions to the AG while seated beside him at the dinner table. Everyone present heard the questions and the conversation that ensued, including the actress Kim Novak. She discussed the event briefly during an interview with Larry King eighteen years ago. Kim recalled that “she had on, of course, a wonderful low gown. And so, she got caught in the plate several times,” a comment that elicited laughter from the television crew. Kim continued and informed King that Marilyn had a list of questions to ask the attorney general, “political things and all. It was really interesting and fascinating.” Certain members of the press also attended the dinner party and reported that the actress and the politician spent what they, the reporters, considered to be an inordinate amount of time conversing; and thus, a few imaginative authors have speculated that Marilyn and Bobby discussed more titillating topics that night. In his memoir, Norman Rosten, Marilyn’s New York poet friend, remarked: “Romantic overtones were undoubtedly read into the prolonged tête-á-tête by the movie colony, whose greatest indoor game is to create imaginary infidelities… carnality in the eye of the beholder, civil rights in the hushed voices of Bobby and Marilyn.” Also, Pat Newcomb, a friend of both Marilyn and Robert Kennedy, testified unequivocally that the conversation between the movie star and the attorney general focused on his civil rights ideology and agenda.

    Danny acknowledged that his father’s method of treating Marilyn was unorthodox. But his father realized, Danny explained, because of who Marilyn was, because of her unrestrained fame, “she could never be hospitalized,” which led to her “hanging with the family.” In fact, Dr. Milton Wexler, another therapist who shared Dr. Greenson’s office, suggested that Dr. Greenson and his wife, Hildi, should allow Marilyn access to their home as a method of re-parenting her. Dr. Wexler believed that having a “place to return to would alleviate her separation anxiety,” a treatment modality considered controversial then and now.

    The testimony Summers elicited from Danny Greenson repeated information that has been known for decades. Marilyn’s psychological difficulties have been discussed and written about frequently; her personality and her behavior have been analyzed by psychologist and psychiatrist alike. Leading to diagnoses that Marilyn possibly struggled with a bipolar disorder along with a borderline personality. Her mood swings and her feelings could be extreme. Her thoughts generally focused on her profound unhappiness.

    Cassette 56: Joan and Hildi Greenson

    Born in 1941, Joan Greenson, now Aebi, was twenty years old when her father began treating Marilyn Monroe. Joan was forty-two years old when Summers interviewed her for the first time in 1983. According to his source notes, he re-interviewed Joan in 1986, virtually four decades ago. Joan is now an octogenarian.

    Joan’s mother lived to the advanced age of ninety-nine. She died in 2013. According to her obituary Hildi Greenson was a remarkable woman. She and her husband, Dr. Ralph Greenson, transformed their home into a “haven for exchanging ideas and a refuge for all from the world’s cold winds. An insightful, inquisitive, and generous woman, Hildi had a passion for justice and beauty which found expression in her paintings.” Evidently, Hildi was also an artist.

    In May of this year, I contacted Joan via email. I hoped she would agree to open a dialogue with me, during which we could discuss Marilyn along with the Greenson family’s association with Anthony Summers. The Greenson family, I had been warned by Donna Morel, felt that they had been misled by Summers about the kind of book he was writing. I have read transcripts of taped interviews with Joan and Danny, her brother, during which both said as much.

    Each complained, but especially Danny, that Summers did not exactly write Marilyn’s biography. Summers wrote a pathography, condensed the first thirty years of Marilyn’s life into a single chapter, and then he concentrated primarily on the final two years of her life and her association with the middle Kennedy brothers. Summers had led them to believe that he was only marginally interested in Marilyn’s involvement with John and Robert Kennedy.

    While Donna spoke to Joan several years ago, Gary Vitacco-Robles informed me that he never received any response to his requests for an interview. According to Gary, Joan gave Donald Spoto full access to her father’s archives regarding Marilyn, and then the biographer accused Dr. Greenson of prescribing a fatal enema that killed his most famous client. Gary also expressed the belief that Joan, understandably, no longer trusted biographers.

    After I emailed Joan, a couple of days passed before I received a succinct response: she appreciated my interest, she wrote, but she could not provide any answers to my inquiry. In a second email, I asked Joan if she was under the constraint of a non-disclosure agreement, and if so, who or what entity held the agreement. To date, I have not received a response. Evidently, I should have been more clear about myself: I am not a biographer.

    The testimony that Summers elicited from Joan Greenson and her mother was exactly like the testimony that he elicited from other interviewees: neither Joan nor Hildi revealed anything new or secret. They did not reveal anything remotely earth shattering. Even Joan Greenson’s comment about Marilyn calling the new man in her life “the General” was nothing new, despite Summers’ exposition about that moniker. Thirty-seven years ago, in the 1985 version of Goddess, Summers noted: “She [Marilyn] told me,” said Joan Greenson, “that she was seeing somebody, but she didn’t want to burden me with the responsibility of knowing who it was, because he was well known. So, she said she was going to call him ‘the General’.” In later editions of Goddess, Summers repeated Joan’s testimony. In fact, mythologizing authors have often repeated that quotation and pointed to Marilyn’s use of the esoteric moniker as proof that she and the attorney general were involved in a romantic affair.

    But Marilyn denied that she and the attorney general were romantically involved. Marilyn asked both Rupert Allan and Ralph Roberts if they had heard the rumors regarding a romance between her and Robert Kennedy. When each man responded affirmatively, she responded emphatically that the rumors were false. Marilyn posed the same question to Susan Strasberg, according to the latter’s memoir: She asked me if I’d heard the rumors about Bobby and her. She said: “It isn’t true.” Marilyn confided in both Allan and Roberts, along with Susan Strasberg, to whom she described Robert Kennedy as so puny, that she did not find Bobby physically appealing. She liked him, just not physically. The attorney general was not Marilyn’s preferred physical type. Marilyn preferred older men, tall, thin men who wore glasses. Even Peter Law­ford testified to the LAPD that what had been written by various authors about Marilyn and the middle Kennedy brothers was pure fantasy. And Lawford reported to Randy Taraborrelli: “All of this business about Marilyn and JFK and Bobby is pure crap. I think maybe—and I’m saying maybe—she had one or two dates with JFK. Not a single date with Bobby, though…” At any rate, I have a notion that a sardonically playful Marilyn was toying with Joan Greenson, and her mother, because Marilyn knew the two women would, as Hildi even admitted on tape, find the prospect of such a romance titillating. Marilyn could also have simply been engaging in what amounted to girlish one-upmanship.

    Cassette 52A: Peggy Feury

    Margaret Feury, known as Peggy, was primarily a stage actor and a highly regarded acting teacher who also appeared in several films. She was a charter member of the Actors Studio; and when Lee Strasberg was unavailable, she managed the studio’s acting sessions. In 1978, she and her family moved to Los Angeles where she taught at the Actors and Directors Lab before helping Lee Strasberg establish his Theatre Institute on the West Coast. Eventually, she and her husband, William Traylor, founded the Loft Studio where she taught acting classes whose participants included James Cromwell, Lou Gossett, Jr., Sean Penn, and Johnny Depp.

    According to Peggy’s taped testimony, she saw Marilyn frequently at several Strasberg parties and they would talk a lot. Peggy said that Monroe “had very strong goals for herself,” and she was very “bright about acting.” During their conversations at the Actors Studio, Marilyn would discuss how she intended to approach her performance. In Peggy’s estimation, Marilyn really cared. But Peggy also informed Summers that they conversed about Marilyn’s childhood memories of being molested. Marilyn “felt that she had avoided…that she knew people who were psychotic from such episodes and she felt that at least she’d survived that.” Summers seemed nonplussed: “She was talking about that as late as then?” An expression of a certain dismay seemed prompted by his incredulity. Besides, Summers was primarily interested in Marilyn’s decline, a topic about which he often asked his interviewees; and he asked if Peggy saw Marilyn “in the time of her deterioration?” Apparently, Peggy did not respond.

    Peggy Feury appeared in Summers’ print versions of Goddess. But the author did not include the testimony offered by Peggy that was included in his Netflix movie. Summers apparently doubted the veracity of Norma Jeane’s childhood molestation story, an event that Marilyn reported in her incomplete memoir. Summers wrote: “She claimed early on that she had been sexually molested as a child, and it was a theme she harped on obsessively throughout her life. Was it a real event?” Summers tended to dismiss Norma Jeane’s molestation story as a yarn with merely “a core of the truth…not the only episode of fantasy [and] self-serving exaggeration.” As Sarah Churchwell noted in her 2004 publication, Summers considered Marilyn’s memoir nothing but “a pack of self-serving lies” reported by a “pathological liar” and a “fantasist.” Summers decided that he would still rely on Marilyn’s unfinished memoir for information pertaining to Norma Jeane’s childhood, even though he had already dismissed the memoir as primarily an “unreliable” work of fiction. So, did Peggy Feury change Summers’ opinion? Had he grown to finally believe that Norma had, in fact, endured a childhood molestation? Summers left that question unanswered.

    Cassette 98: Henry Rosenfeld

    Known as the Henry Ford of dress makers, Henry Rosenfeld manufactured low cost dresses whose designs were chic enough to satisfy the uber wealthy, posh women of Manhattan. He made it socially acceptable for them to buy clothes off the rack; and as a result, he became wealthy himself. Yet another man who claimed to be Marilyn’s friend and intimate confidant for her entire adult life, he confirmed for Summers that Marilyn was, in fact, pregnant while she filmed Some Like It Hot, certainly not a globe rattling revelation. And Rosenfeld’s comment that Marilyn’s Happy Birthday performance for President Kennedy “was one of the most exciting things in her life” made him a master of the obvious. Certainly, any sentient person asked to perform at a president’s birthday gala would be excited; and by all accounts, Marilyn was not only excited, she was also unnerved, worried about her performance. But perhaps more importantly, Marilyn would later remark that she was honored by the invitation to perform at President Kennedy’s birthday gala. Again, who wouldn’t be?

    Rosenfeld, on the other hand, used Marilyn’s understandable feelings about appearing at John Kennedy’s birthday celebration as an example of a flaw, a crack in her character: “Just being the one to sing. She was picked. The one.” But then, Marilyn was not the only person picked to perform that evening; many other stars also performed. In all, nineteen celebrities performed for the President of the United States. Are we to assume that all the other performers were nonchalant or apathetic about their performance for President Kennedy?

    But―Rosenfeld’s testimony regarding what Marilyn wanted most in the world was categorically outrageous. And to contend that she would openly reveal such a grotesque fantasy at a party, borders on buffoonery. Evidently, Summers did not pursue that buffoonery or even ask any probing questions. For instance: where did this party transpire? Who threw it? Who else attended? Did Summers even attempt to locate a person who could corroborate Henry Rosenfeld’s ludicrous assertion? Apparently not: the print version of Goddess did not include a corroborating statement from anyone. We are left to conclude that the investigative journalist merely accepted what Rosenfeld said simply because the dress manufacturer said that he was Marilyn’s friend and confidant. In the end, though, why would Summers repeat Marilyn’s alleged sex-with-her-father-fantasy without any real evidence that she had actually admitted to that fantasy, admitted to it publicly? Perhaps to confirm Marilyn’s fundamental immorality along with her evident mental illness? But then, why would Rosenfeld make such a sad and grotesque accusation?

    According to Scott Fortner, a recognized Marilyn expert, she rejected Rosenfeld’s proposal of marriage: “As it turns out,” Fortner revealed, “[Rosenfeld] proposed to Marilyn and was clearly in love with her based on letters he sent. Could this incredibly ridiculous statement about Marilyn wanting to sleep with her father be in retaliation for her unreturned affection?” Seems plausible, at least to me. With Rosenfeld’s sad but silly testimony in place, and Summers’ overriding point made, he proceeded to the next life-long confidant and intimate friend of the world’s most famous woman.

    Cassette 97B: Arthur James

    Just like many other men have declared, and even a few women, Arthur James also stated that he was Marilyn’s intimate confidant and friend for most of her adult life. In James’ case, he testified to Summers that they met many years before her 1954 wedding to Joe DiMaggio. I usually start with the quantity of ten to represent many. Certainly, Arthur James did not know Marilyn Monroe in 1944: she was persona nonexistent at that time.

    Referring to the print version of Goddess, evidently James met Marilyn through Charlie Chaplin Jr., who began an alleged affair with the starlet in 1948.  However, on the 9th of March in 1948, Marilyn signed her six-month contract with Columbia Pictures. Almost immediately she fell in love with and became intimately involved with the studio’s musical director, and Marilyn’s vocal coach, Fred Karger. Marilyn even lived briefly with Fred’s mother, Anne, and his sister, Mary. Her relationship with Karger lasted until the end of 1948 and led directly to her monogamous relationship with Johnny Hyde; which ended with Hyde’s death in mid-December of 1950.

    In the print version of Goddess, Summers quoted Arthur James frequently, and most of his testimony focused on Marilyn’s putative sexual relationships with Edward G. Robinson, Jr. and Charlie Chaplin, Jr., along with her sexual relationships with the middle Kennedy brothers. But since the Netflix testimony presented by Summers did not mention either junior, neither Edward G nor Chaplin, I will not excavate into that mound of problems. Still, each man left behind a memoir. Edward G. Robinson Jr. published his memoir in 1958; and Charlie Chaplin Jr. published his in 1960. Robinson mentioned only that he landed a tiny part in Marilyn’s movie, Bus Stop; primarily because his father knew Joshua Logan, the movie’s director. Chaplin junior mentioned that he briefly dated Norma Jean Dougherty, who, he reported:

    started going to the top [of the movie world] fast, and it was the duty of her studio publicity department to keep her name in the papers by dating her here and there with other eligible young men. So, she and I drifted apart and I haven’t seen her for years.

    Neither of the juniors, in their memoirs, mentioned Arthur James. In her memoir, Marilyn mentioned her romances with Fred Karger, Johnny Hyde, and Joe DiMaggio. But she did not acknowledge either Chaplin Jr. nor Robinson, neither friendship nor romance. And she did not acknow­ledge Arthur James. His name did not appear in My Story.

    I have several serious issues with James’ testimony. But for the sake of brevity, I’ll discuss only one at this time: the assertion that Marilyn spent a weekend with her alleged good friend and confidant in Laguna Beach. James says that, “We met in Laguna a month before she died. She came down for the weekend and she told us…what had really taken place with the Kennedys.” There are only two weekends during which this purported visit to Laguna Beach could have occurred within a month of her death:

    1. the last Saturday in June and the first Sunday in July (June 30th and July 1st), or
    2. the first weekend in July (July the 7th and 8th)

    I can only surmise that Marilyn did not inform James of any other life altering events that she had recently endured, at least not on the tape Netflix and Summers shared, just her alleged shattering break-up with the middle Kennedy boys. However, significant events that transpired during the month of June, prior to Marilyn’s reported trip to Laguna, suggests that several of those events just might have been weighing on her mind.

    On Friday, June the 1st, Marilyn and the film crew celebrated the star’s thirty-sixth birthday on the set of Something’s Got to Give. Her co-stars Dean Martin and Wally Cox attended along with photographer George Barris, Eunice Murray, and Evelyn Moriarty, Marilyn’s stand-in. On Thursday, June 7, Fox sued Marilyn Monroe Productions and Marilyn Monroe for breach of contract. The suit asked for $500K in damages, effectively ended Marilyn’s employment and jeopardized her career, which caused her, quite understandably, to vacillate between utter depression and undiluted anger. Later, she would express her disbelief that Fox had actually fired her, the studio for which she had made twenty movies and earned tens of millions of dollars.

    On the same day Fox filed their lawsuit, Dr. Greenson took Marilyn for an examination by Dr. Michael Gurdin, the eminent Beverly Hills plastic surgeon. Marilyn’s eyes were black and blue and swollen. According to Dr. Greenson, Marilyn sustained the injuries when she slipped and fell while taking a shower. Even though Marilyn’s nose was not broken, she retreated to her Fifth Helena Drive hacienda where she sequestered herself for sixteen days. She could not be seen in public with a bruised, discolored face. Then, on Monday, June the 11th, Fox officially suspended production on Something’s Got to Give and filed an amended lawsuit that raised the amount of requested redress to $750K.

    Due to Marilyn’s bruised face, she declined several invitations to attend social events, including an invitation from Ethel and Robert Kennedy to attend a party honoring Pat and Peter Lawford at Hickory Hill, the Kennedy’s Virginia home. Marilyn dispatched her regrets in the now famous telegram to the Kennedys regarding her fight for minority rights and her right, as an earthbound star, to twinkle.

    Fox planned to replace Marilyn and continue filming Something’s Got to Give with the actress Lee Remick. But the executives at the studio did not foresee Dean Martin’s reaction: he had co-star approval. He refused to accept Lee Remick and summarized his position succinctly: no Marilyn, no movie. Marilyn was completely gratified by Martin’s loyalty. In utter disarray by this time, on June 19th, Fox sued Dean Martin and Claude Productions, Martin’s production company, for $3M, prompting Martin to counter sue for $6.8M.

    By June 23rd, Marilyn’s facial injuries had healed: the bruises were gone. Beginning on the 23rd, Marilyn posed for Bert Stern, whose intermittent sessions for Vogue magazine ended on July 12th. Marilyn also posed for George Barris at Santa Monica Beach during Friday the 29th, Saturday the 30th, and Sunday July 1st. According to Barris and his memoir, each session took the entirety of each day. Barris mentioned the Sunday session particularly, noting that he and Marilyn worked until the sunlight began to fade to silver. Finally, on the 4th, 5th, 7th and 9th of July, she gave Richard Meryman what would be her last interview for Life magazine.

    Clearly, a considerable number of life changing events had prevailed upon Marilyn during the month of June in 1962. I, for one, find it difficult to believe that the middle Kennedy brothers would have been the only topic occupying her thoughts. “As a person, my work is important to me,” she once commented during an interview. “My work is the only ground I’ve ever had to stand on.” Considering that her profession was in serious peril at that time, surely she would have mentioned that fact to her dear friend, Arthur James; and too, clearly there are calendar date conflicts. She could not have been in Laguna Beach if she was with George Barris at Santa Monica Beach or with Richard Meryman at Fifth Helena Drive giving an interview.

    Arthur James also testified that Marilyn “was hurt, terribly hurt when she was told directly never to call or contact” the Kennedy boys again. An order that arrived from both the president and the AG: “That’s it. No more. That’s—that’s the end of it.” Then James informed Summers: “And that’s what killed her.” Curious. If Robert Kennedy abruptly dispatched Marilyn and ordered her not to contact him ever again, why did he and his wife invite Marilyn to attend a party at their Virginia mansion? Under the circumstances described by Arthur James, for Robert Kennedy to have extended that invitation was certainly nonsensical, not to even mention connubially dangerous.

    Donna Morel, arguably one of the best, if not the best researcher on the planet, used Facebook to locate one of James’ relatives, who then arranged for Donna to interview James. Fre­quently lifted aloft by flights of fantasy, according to his relative, Arthur could lapse into episodes of yarn weaving. Even so, Donna talked with James on May 1st of this year. They discussed Goddess primarily and James disputed several assertions that Summers attributed to him; but I will let those sleeping hounds continue to sleep―at least for the time being.

    Of importance to note is this: Donna asked Arthur James if he had “any letters, photos or any type of evidence to substantiate his relationship with Monroe.” James admitted, just like Jeanne Carmen, Robert Slatzer, and Ted Jordan, that he likewise had no evidence, no proof that he even knew the world’s most famous movie star, much less that he was one of her most trusted confidants. But of even more importance is this: James denied asserting that Marilyn visited him at Laguna Beach in 1962, a month before she died. He reported to Donna that Marilyn’s weekend visit occurred “at least a year earlier than that. Then he seemed to indicate this happened in the early 1950s and she would stay at an apartment building he owned.” So, James denied saying what he had clearly said on tape; at least the tape that Summers unveiled for his Netflix movie. Such a conundrum: what to believe: what James said or what James said and then denied he said. When evaluating the testimony of any person, their credibility is the key. The question is, all things considered, particularly the information I have presented herein, does Arthur James have any real credibility? And why did Summers not cross check any of this?  Why leave it to Donna Morel and myself?

    Cassette 81A: Milton Greene

    In September of 1949, Marilyn attended a party at the residence of Rupert Allan and Frank McCarthy. While there, she met a rising star in the world of photography, Milton Greene. She spent most of the evening talking with and listening to the young and handsome New Yorker as he spoke about using the camera like a painter uses a brush. Milton soon returned to the East Coast and Marilyn returned to the travails of movie making. Four years would pass before Marilyn reunited with the photographer in October of 1953. By that time, the world of film and cameras had anointed Milton the Wonder Boy of Color Photography and Marilyn had become Marilyn. The photographer and the movie star became dear friends and Marilyn frequently posed for Milton’s photo­graphic paint brush. Between them a strong nexus formed, rather like the odd connection shared by identical twins. And even Milton’s wife, Amy, recognized and accepted that her husband and Marilyn could communicate using a shorthand that only they understood.

    For Summers, Milton confirmed that he and Marilyn loved each other, period, that they shared a close relationship. Summers, however, was primarily interested in Marilyn’s sexual shenanigans while she was married. He asked Milton if a married Marilyn Monroe “was pretty much of a good, faithful wife?” Milton responded that Marilyn was and what she wanted most of all was a baby. That’s odd: didn’t Henry Rosenfeld say what she wanted most in life was to trick her father into seducing her? If Monroe had “a choice between children and stardom, Milton commented, it would have been children. Without question.” Summers could only manage a “Hmmmm.” He must have expected to learn some-thing completely different.

    Cassette 1: Sydney Guilaroff

    So far, two men have asserted that each was Marilyn’s most intimate friend and confidant from the beginning of her Hollywood career until her death. Sydney Guilaroff becomes the third. Still, and despite the fact that Guilaroff obviously knew Marilyn, several Marilyn historians have expressed doubts regarding the veracity of Guilaroff’s anecdotes about his relationship with the blonde movie star. According to David Marshall, Guilaroff was the guest speaker at one of the annual August assemblies to commemorate Marilyn’s death held at the Pierce Brothers Cemetery. Evidently, during his speech, Guilaroff recounted a few memories of Marilyn and referred to his association with her as merely “brief.” During that appearance, a few of Marilyn’s fans asked Guilaroff if he planned to write a book about his relationship with Marilyn. According to Marshall, Guilaroff declared that he “loved Marilyn dearly but he had nothing at all exciting to write about.”

    But wait. In 1996, Guilaroff published his memoir filled with braggadocio, and he suddenly remembered:

    1. that he actually directed Marilyn’s MGM screen test which secured for the blonde starlet the part of Angela Phinlay in John Huston’s The Asphalt Jungle; and
    2. a frantic telephone call from Marilyn on the night of August 4th regarding a visit by Robert Kennedy and a physical altercation with the attorney general, which caused Marilyn to fear for her life.

    Both John Huston, who directed, and Arthur Hornblow, who produced, told differing stories about Marilyn’s casting in their noir heist movie.  Lucile Ryman, MGM’s casting director at that time, told another story which included Louis Mayer. The stories told by Huston, Hornblow, and Ryman did not include Guilaroff in any capacity other than Marilyn’s hairdresser. And as far as the frantic telephone call from Marilyn is concerned, Guilaroff is just one of many persons who asserted that they spoke to Marilyn on the night she died. None of those assertions have been or can be verified. Guilaroff gave several interviews with various authors; and during those interviews, he gave conflicting accounts regarding his purported telephone encounter with Marilyn. In one interview, he actually claimed that he spoke to her twice that Saturday.

    The testimony that Anthony Summers elicited from Guilaroff included some laudatory comments about Marilyn, her naiveté, her soft and gentle quality. Guilaroff specifically noted that Marilyn was often unhappy; but he declined to say anything else, noting for Summers that Marilyn had been “gone for twenty years.” He then added: “It makes me unhappy to talk about it. It really does. I can’t bring myself to talk about it.”

    Cassette (Unnumbered): Billy Wilder

    Many cinephiles consider Billy Wilder to be the greatest Hollywood screenwriter and director of all time.  He either wrote or co-wrote and directed many movies that appear on various Greatest of All Time lists. Wilder directed Marilyn twice. In 1954, he directed The Seven Year Itch; and then four years later, he directed Some Like It Hot. Wilder’s list of accolades and awards is virtually endless. But when he received the American Film Institute’s Lifetime Achievement Award in 1986, he thanked ten individuals by name, movie stars that had directly contributed to his legacy. Wilder included Marilyn Monroe on that list. During a party for Marilyn following the completion of The Seven Year Itch, the actress attributed her memorable performance to Billy Wilder, who was then directing The Spirit of St. Louis. She wanted Billy to direct her again, she commented and then added humorously: “but he wouldn’t let me play Charles Lindbergh.”

    The celebrated director often spoke about Marilyn. He spoke about her on-set problems, her lack of confidence, her inability to memorize simple lines of dialogue, and her tardiness. He once commented, however, that he had an aging aunt in Germany who was always on time and could probably memorize her lines; but “nobody would want to see her in a picture.” Invariably, Wilder followed his criticisms of Marilyn with statements extolling her on-screen magic and her unique abilities. Marilyn, he testified, “was slightly discombobulated at all times”; but despite her often aggravating idiosyncrasies and need for multiple takes, Marilyn always deliv­ered “something absolutely unique that cannot be … that cannot be duplicated. I had no prob­lems with Monroe.” Wilder informed Summers: “Monroe had problems with Monroe. She had problems with herself.” Wilder once admitted, during an emotional interview about Marilyn, that he missed her like Hell. But once again, Wilder’s testimony revealed absolutely nothing new. But he was a big-name movie director.

    Cassette 80: Jeanne Martin

    Born Dorothy Jean Biegger in Coral Gables, Florida, Dorothy began a modeling career sometime around 1946 and she adopted the moniker of Jeanne. A year after she won the title of Orange Bowl Queen, Jeanne attended a New Year’s Eve show featuring the comedy team of Martin and Lewis. Evidently, after seeing each other, both Jeanne and Dean were immediately smitten. Dean filed for a divorce from his first wife, and only one week after the court granted that divorce, Jeanne and Dean wed in the Beverly Hills home of a friend. According to Jeanne’s obituary, the general public viewed the Martins “as one of Hollywood’s happiest couples until on Dec. 10, 1969, the date that Jeanne issued a statement announcing that she and Dean were parting ways.” The divorce was finalized in 1972. Jeanne and Dean remained friendly because of their seven children, even after he married for a third time in 1973. The former Mrs. Dean Martin never remarried.

    Jeanne Martin’s testimony to Anthony Summers focused on the middle Kennedy brothers’ sexual predation.  Primarily the predatory behavior of John Kennedy, which, according to Jeanne’s testimony, she experienced firsthand. When Summers asked her if she was present at the Lawford’s beach house when Marilyn cavorted with either of the middle Kennedy brothers, Jeanne never directly responded. But she blamed Joe, Sr. for his son’s behavior, described by her as tacky and corny bad boy antics: “they were chips off the old block,” she editorialized. Then Summers asked if Bobby was a “grabber?” Jeanne answered: “Yeah. Not in the terms that Jack was.” She did not elaborate and Summers, of course, did not pursue any additional details or an explanation.

    A considerable amount of testimony pertaining to Robert Kennedy’s somewhat Puritanical attitude and behavior has been offered over the years. Testimony from acquaintances, friends, and even FBI agents dispatched by J. Edgar Hoover with the expressed mission of mining muck on one of Hoover’s archenemies. In his posthumously published memoir, William Sullivan, who was Deputy Director of the FBI under Hoover, asserted that the boss desperately wanted and attempted to catch Robert Kennedy in compromising situations. But the FBI director never did because Robert Kennedy “was almost a Puritan.” Agents of the FBI often observed him at parties during which the attorney general “would order one glass of scotch and still be sipping from the same glass two hours later,” Sullivan asserted. The stories involving a love affair between Bobby Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe were just that, stories started by Frank Capell, “a right-wing zealot who had a history of spinning wild yarns.” According to many persons who knew Robert Kennedy, he was a devout Catholic. And regarding whether or not Marilyn was under the influence of a “Bobby thing” or a “Jack thing,” Jeanne recalled that her impression was both (emphasis mine). Miriam-Webster Dictionary defines impression as follows: “an often indistinct or imprecise notion or remembrance.”

    Cassette 33: Fred Otash and John Danoff

    Private investigator Fred Otash was a muckraker for the gossip magazine Confidential. He actively searched for compromising information about movie stars, their sex lives, and their spouse’s sex lives. He often targeted the friends of celebrities. Otash was the most disreputable private detective that ever haunted the dimly lit streets and dark alleys of Hollywood. He was a cold damp mist.

    Mike Wallace interviewed Otash for Sixty Minutes in 1973. Following that interview, Wallace announced that Otash was the most amoral man that he, Wallace, had ever interviewed. Convicted of a criminal conspiracy to defraud for financial gain, offering a bribe, and also doping a horse, Otash had his license indefinitely suspended by state authorities. Otash was a recognized prevaricator at best and, at worst, an incorrigible liar. He appeared in Goddess and the Netflix movie to confirm that the umpteen secret tapes of Marilyn and the middle Kennedy brothers actually existed: Otash made and actually heard them.  But wait, there is even more. Otash actually listened as someone killed Marilyn Monroe, he listened to her die. Summers expected his audience just to accept the testimony of a known criminal and liar, a horrid man who, if you believe him, listened to Marilyn’s murder but did nothing to stop it. John Danoff, an Otash employee, functioned as a form of dubious corroboration for the Otash testimony.

    There is only one problem. During the six decades since Fred Otash purportedly obtained the tape recordings involving Marilyn, John and Robert Kennedy, not one tape has ever surfaced. Not one has ever been heard by the public. In six decades. Imagine their monetary worth.

    Furthermore, why should I—or anyone else—just accept the testimony of a man as degenerate and corrupt as Fred Otash. Many authors, including Summers, have invoked Otash’s name and invoked the specter of his unheard tapes as a form of proof, a form of confirmation that the lurid and salacious stories about Marilyn and the middle Kennedy brothers are factual, which is, frankly ludicrous. And those author’s expectations that I will accept testimony from a man like Otash insults my intelligence and my humanity, as it should us all. To even consider Otash’s testimony after the passing of sixty years, without any tangible evidence that the obscure and farcical tapes ever existed is ridiculous.

    One final word about the purported secret tapes. During his interview, Otash noted: “And someone wired up Marilyn’s house on behalf of Hoffa.” (emphasis mine) The photographs that flashed on screen during that piece of Otash testimony were of Bernard Spindel, which Summers did not reveal. Spindel was Hoffa’s ally, his telephone tapper and bedroom bugger. Both Hoffa and Spindel were indicted for illegally tapping the telephones of the teamsters’ union headquarters in 1957. Two years later, Spindel became embroiled, due to his Hoffa association, with Robert Kennedy, then an attorney for the McClelland Investigating Committee on Labor Racketeering. This, of course, involved both Jimmy Hoffa and Bernard Spindel. In December of 1966, New York police and special agents from the telephone company, raided Spindel’s New York home and laboratory. The officers confiscated all of Spindel’s equipment, files, and tape recordings. The New York State District Attorney’s investigators reported to the Los Angeles DA in 1982, as noted in the LADA’s Summary Report, that “none of the tapes contained anything relating to Marilyn Monroe.” Like his pal Fred Otash, Spindel was “a known boaster” and frequently alluded to having knowledge of a number of secrets.

    Yech.

    see Part 2

  • CNN’s Apologia for LBJ, Part One

    CNN’s Apologia for LBJ, Part One


    Joseph Califano graduated from Harvard Law School in 1955. After serving in the Navy, he worked in private practice as an attorney in New York City until 1961. He then went to the Pentagon and rose to General Counsel of the Army. In 1964, he represented the USA during international hearings involving riots in Panama. After that, he became a liaison between the Defense Secretary and President Johnson. From that position, he monitored the Selma protest. In July of 1965, he became Johnson’s chief domestic advisor. He stayed in that job until LBJ left office.

    While in private practice, he was appointed by Jimmy Carter as Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. In 1980, he returned to private practice, rising to senior partner at Dewey Ballantine in Washington DC. He has penned many newspaper columns and magazine articles and served on corporate boards. He has also written 14 books. In 1991, he wrote one about his service with LBJ. It was titled The Triumph and Tragedy of Lyndon Johnson: The White House Years.

    CNN has now made a four-part series that adapts the title of Califano’s book, LBJ: Triumph and Tragedy. As we shall see, it is very much in keeping with the thematic structure of Califano’s book. It debuted over President’s Day and I was informed by a frequenter of KennedysAndKing about it. I watched all four segments, which was difficult. Like other members of Johnson’s administration, for example the late Jack Valenti and news executive Tom Johnson—who is interviewed here—Califano expended some effort trying to salvage what was, by any honest accounting, a disastrous presidency. The problem was all the more difficult because Johnson ascended to the White House after John Kennedy’s presidency, one which was marked with much hope and optimism. But the net effect of Johnson’s policies was so polarizing that he split asunder the Democratic coalition. This led to the election of Richard Nixon in 1968. Many historians consider that year to be one of the most crucial, most tumultuous years in post war history. It marked a transformation in the power politics of America. We were now completing a transition from a country led by the Kennedys, King, and Malcolm X to one led by Nixon, Henry Kissinger, John Mitchell, and Gerald Ford. Those pernicious reverberations are being felt to this day.

    What is surprising about this program is that, in its Califano style, tone, and assembly, it does what it can to camouflage just how that milestone happened. What it leaves out—and what it uses sleight of hand to transfigure—are things that cannot be ignored or dodged in any responsible critique.

    II

    Anyone can read the updated introduction to Califano’s book at Amazon. Just from that, one can see that the author is intent on rehabilitating President Johnson in the public square. He writes that “Perhaps Johnson’s path will one day serve as a road map for current and future leaders.” (p. 6, all references to the eBook version) Califano specifically says that Vietnam has clouded the things Johnson did domestically. (p. 7) He adds that Johnson should be ranked with the finest progressive presidents, like the Roosevelts. (ibid) He then starts listing some of the things Johnson achieved.

    The problem I have with his list is that Califano implies sole credit should go to Johnson for everything on it, but that is not the whole story. President Kennedy began the program for federal aid to education. (Irving Bernstein, Promises Kept, Chapter 7) It was Kennedy who first tried to pass a Medicare program and he was bringing it back at the time of his death. (ibid, p. 258) The Civil Rights Act was originated by President Kennedy and, as Clay Risen shows, the three main personages involved in passing it were Bobby Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, and Thomas Kuchel. (The New Republic, “The Shrinking of Lyndon Johnson,” 2/9/2014) For Califano to insinuate that it was Lyndon Johnson who originated affirmative action is, again, not accurate. John Kennedy signed the first affirmative action order on March 6, 1961. It’s true that Johnson’s staff worked on it, but that is because Kennedy appointed Johnson to supervise much of this program. And Robert Kennedy was critical of Johnson’s supervision. (Bernstein, p. 60)

    Contrary to conventional—and Califano’s—wisdom, the War on Poverty was the brainchild of Kennedy and his chief economic advisor Walter Heller. (Thurston Clarke, JFK’s Last Hundred Days, pp. 242–43) Heller suggested an “attack on poverty” and Kennedy told him he was going to make this an election issue. At his final meeting with his cabinet, JFK mentioned the word “poverty” six times. After his assassination, his widow took the notes of that meeting to Robert Kennedy. RFK framed them and put them up on his wall, but even that only reveals part of the story. (Edward Schmitt, President of the Other America, pp. 92, 96) Bobby Kennedy had appointed a lifelong friend, David Hackett, to come up with ideas and plans to ameliorate the problems of poverty and juvenile delinquency in blighted areas. President Kennedy had given Hackett millions of dollars to run experiments with his ideas. (Allen Matusow, The Unraveling of America, pp. 111–12)

    One last point in this regard. It was Bobby Kennedy who first suggested Head Start and Upward Bound, perhaps the two most successful programs of the War on Poverty. (Schmitt, p. 114) This is just a sample of the problems I have with Califano’s book, but the issue of accreditation is integral to this review, since it is clear that the mini-series pretty much takes the same approach to Johnson as Califano did. (When I tried to find out who wrote the script, I could not get a clear answer. The closest I got was that the team at the production company—Bat Bridge Entertainment—did it. March 24th email from Anne Wheeler of the LBJ Foundation.)

    The fact that JFK started affirmative action and began to move an omnibus civil rights bill and also was working on poverty contradicts another tenet of the show, made by Professor Kevin Gaines, namely that Kennedy was reluctant to support civil rights and that it was LBJ who took up that cause. As I have demonstrated at length, this is balderdash. (Click here for details)

    Let me add a key point not addressed by the film or by Califano. As noted above, no one did more work on the ways to cure poverty and delinquency than David Hackett did. He had been toiling on the problem and perfecting ideas to ameliorate it for over two years. (Schmitt, p. 92) Yet when Johnson took over the program, Hackett was retired. In all my reading on the subject, which includes many books, I have never been able to find a good answer as to why.

    But that is not the worst part of the transfer of the program. The worst part was that Johnson chose Sargent Shriver, JFK’s brother-in-law, as the new manager. The problem with this choice was simple: Shriver already had a job. He was managing the Peace Corps. It was a job he liked and was good at. Bobby Kennedy protested, but Johnson ignored him. (Matusow, p. 123) The third mistake LBJ made was that he turned the Hackett/Kennedy outline into a sort of New Deal program. He announced it during his State of the Union address in early 1964. In other words, what JFK was going to campaign on that fall and give Hackett time to perfect, LBJ was announcing before he even ran for election. In fact, before he had even been nominated! This may have been one reason Walter Heller resigned. He saw the writing on the wall.

    Once it was passed, Johnson did not speak much or spend any amount of time on the program’s oversight or administration. (Bruce Schulman, Lyndon B. Johnson and American Liberalism, p. 95) Therefore, since there was no quality control, Hackett’s program fell victim to those on the left and the right. As to the latter, people like Richard Daley wanted to take the money for themselves and give it to the city or school boards. (Matusow, p. 125, Schmitt, pp. 115–16) People on the left, like Livingston Wingate of Harlem, decided to use the money to put on plays. And much of that—mounting into the millions—disappeared without a trace. (Matusow p. 260)

    As many have pointed out, The Great Society programs benefited middle class people, for example the PBS network and arts programs. Many of them benefited everyone: like environmental laws. The problem was that much more money and effort went into those kinds of programs than did the War on Poverty.

    There is another important factor about The Great Society and the ultimate failure of the War on Poverty that the film does not address. That would be the 1966 mid-term elections. In 1964, running on his slogans of “let us continue” what Kennedy had done, “we seek no wider war” in Asia and “I will not send American boys to do what Asian boys should be doing,” LBJ won a smashing victory both for himself and in Congress. It was the biggest such win since Franklin Roosevelt’s 1936 re-election. Johnson actually had a veto proof majority in the Senate and a more than 2–1 advantage in the House.

    But the fact that Johnson reneged on all of those promises made a large difference in 1966. The GOP won 47 seats in the House and 3 in the Senate. As a result, Johnson lost his veto proof advantage in the upper house and a filibuster along party lines was possible. Make no mistake about this. The Republican Party was literally on the ropes after 1964. Some Republicans feared extinction; that they would go the way of the Whigs and disappear from the scene. Not only did Johnson let them off the ropes—as we shall see—what he did in 1967–68 let them fully revivify themselves.

    III

    This four-part TV series discusses Johnson’s reaction to the Watts riots in 1965. RFK predicted that riots would break out in the North unless something was done. (Schmitt, p. 86) Kennedy actually said this to a Senate committee in February of 1963, and in the strongest terms. In his view, America was:

    …racing the clock against disaster…We must give the members of this new lost generation some real hope in order to prevent a shattering explosion of social problems in the years to come. (ibid)

    Bobby Kennedy understood that the problems in the North were different than those in the South. He and Hackett were trying to find solutions to problems that could not be cured with an accommodations bill or a voting rights act. Sure enough, two years later, when Martin Luther King visited Watts after the riots, that was the message he gave to Johnson. (See the film King in the Wilderness) Through the work of Hackett, the AG understood the problems were different in the North and they could be even more incendiary. After the nighttime riot at the University of Mississippi in 1962, he warned Arthur Schlesinger about this possibility. He said, if you think this is bad, wait until you see what awaits us in the North. (Ellen B. Meacham, Delta Epiphany, Chapter 3)

    As Hackett told Bobby Kennedy, the problem of poverty in the North could not be cured by constructing a New Deal program and throwing money at it. Therefore, President Kennedy had given Hackett more time and funding to conduct his experiments in the field to see what would work. But Lyndon Johnson came of political age in the New Deal, his idol was Franklin Roosevelt. He ran the National Youth Administration in Texas. Therefore, that was the kind of program and politics he felt comfortable with. In fact, he told Heller that John Kennedy was a bit too conservative for his taste. (Schmitt, p. 96) When Heller informed the new president about Hackett’s demonstration projects, Johnson almost eliminated the entire program. That was simply not the way Johnson was going to proceed. In his eyes, you had to have a big, bold program in order to pass it through congress. (Schulman, p. 71; Matusow, p. 123) And so Johnson announced the project on national television just six weeks after his first meeting with Heller:

    This administration, today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America…It will not be a short or easy struggle, no single weapon or strategy will suffice, but we shall not rest until that war is won. The richest nation on earth can afford to win it. We cannot afford to lose it.

    To say that this was a bit over the top on a rather untested program is being mild, but it was pure Lyndon Johnson from his New Deal days back in Texas.

    IV

    As Harris Wofford has pointed out, within months of declaring “unconditional war on poverty,” the presidential backing for it was weakening. (Harris Wofford, Of Kennedys and Kings, p. 319) By 1965, LBJ barely mentioned the War on Poverty. And now he did not call it “my war”; it went by the name “poverty program”. Johnson himself was silent during the congressional debates on the program. And in its second year, it was Shriver who was sent up to the Hill to argue for the funding package—with virtually no White House back up. By fiscal year 1966–67, the budget for Johnson’s War on Poverty had been almost cut in half, both by him and the congress.

    As many have noted, the outburst in Watts happened a week after Johnson had signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The President was shocked. He would not even take calls from commanders in the National Guard to fly troops in to restore order. (Wofford, p. 321) As he later told author Doris Kearns:

    It simply wasn’t fair for a few irresponsible agitators to spoil it for me and for all the rest of the Negroes, who are basically peace-loving and nice…spoiling all the progress I’ve made in these last few years. (Wofford, p. 321)

    What is wrong with this documentary is that it takes Watts—like Johnson did—as an isolated incident. In fact, Watts was just the beginning. Although it was a huge riot with 977 buildings damaged, it would later be surpassed by Newark and Detroit. In fact, unnoted in the film, for three straight summers—1966, ’67, ‘68—America went up in flames. There was a grand total of over 300 riots. In 1967 alone, there were eight American cities occupied by the National Guard. (Matusow, p. 362) In Detroit, at the request of the governor, Johnson had to send in the army to quell the insurrection. Detroit ended up with 43 dead, 7000 arrested, 1,300 buildings burned, and 2,700 businesses looted. (Matusow, p. 363)

    Johnson had been warned about this probability by labor leader Walter Reuther. He made fun of both the warning and the man. (Califano, p. 88) By ignoring or discounting all of this, the documentary can bypass a serious result that ensued: the creation of white backlash. In 1964, only 34% of the citizenry thought African Americans were trying to move too fast; two years later, 85% had that view. (Wofford, p. 322) The coalition that Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King wanted to mold, one made up of people of color, poor whites, students, college educated suburban liberals, and the labor movement was being torn up. By 1966, King had split from Johnson, a fact that, again, this film underplays. (Randall Woods, LBJ: Architect of American Ambition, p. 699) Students despised LBJ for his escalation of the Vietnam War and this latter phenomenon coupled the rightwing backlash with a leftwing militancy, for example Stokely Carmichael, H. Rap Brown, and the Weathermen group of the SDS.

    V

    This leftwing militant movement provoked Johnson to do something that the film does not even mention. The president first asked the CIA to set up Operation MH/CHAOS; then for the FBI to reactivate COINTELPRO operations. (Schulman, p. 146) Not only did this constitute a set of extralegal spying operations, it was also used for subversive projects utilizing agent provocateurs for purposes of destabilization of certain groups, for example the Black Panthers. By 1967, Johnson decided discretion was the better part of valor. That fall, he made an appearance in Kansas City for the International Association of Chiefs of Police. (Matusow, p. 215)

    That strophe by Johnson indicated what was ahead for America. So did another odd move. After Newark and Detroit, LBJ had appointed what he termed the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. It was chaired by Illinois governor Otto Kerner and was labeled the Kerner Commission. On February 29, 1968, they handed in their report, which today is regarded as one of the most honest and insightful government reports written in that era. Johnson did not show up for the photo op to receive it. (Joseph Palermo, In His Own Right, p. 161)

    As stated, the Democratic coalition was splitting apart. This allowed men like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan to borrow from Alabama Governor George Wallace and grab his “Law and Order” slogan. The year 1968 was the maelstrom from which the Democratic party never fully recovered. Realizing he had little or no chance of winning the nomination, Johnson withdrew from the race on the last day of March. First King and then RFK were assassinated. This meant having no anti-war candidate at the presidential nominating convention in Chicago. Weirdly, Johnson wanted the convention to symbolically offer him the nomination in order to justify his presidency. Mayor Richard Daley actually told Johnson he could have the nomination if he wanted it. (Califano, p. 372) This is at the convention where LBJ had a peace plank for Vietnam defeated. (Califano, p. 376)

    More of Johnson and more of the war was not what the SDS and other protest groups wanted to hear. They had come to Chicago by the busload to try and find a peace candidate and they planned on protesting if none emerged. This led to Daley staging a vicious police blood bath for the cameras and the convention. Chicago turned into an ugly debacle, sometimes spilling over into the convention hall. No other convention before or since has ever come close to duplicating its ferocity. (The linked short film gives the reader a precis of what that brutal and chaotic scene was like.)

    The fact that this took place on TV, plus what LBJ had done to defeat a peace plank, this severely crippled nominee Hubert Humphrey’s campaign. Only when later in the campaign he decided to move toward a dovish position did he start to make up ground, but it was too big of a gap. Chicago gave the presidency to Richard Nixon. It’s hard to vote for a party who cannot even peacefully organize their own convention and where one of the main speakers, Senator Abe Ribicoff, equates the mayor of the host city to the gestapo. As the reader can see, in 1966 and ’68, Johnson had not just let the GOP off the mat, he had placed them on a path to power. None of this is depicted in CNN’s film.

    But the film does show LBJ in retirement and being honored for the Great Society and Voting Rights Act. In accepting the honor, he says something like: I just regret I did not do more. My question to the film-makers is this: How the heck could he have done more? Between the demonstrations by students against the war and the annual incinerations of scores of cities, just where was the political capital for Johnson to do more? He had lost King. He had lost RFK. He almost lost to Gene McCarthy in the New Hampshire primary in 1968. According to Jules Witcover in his book 85 Days, Johnson was being told that in Wisconsin, the next state to hold a primary that year, he was about to be trounced. In fact, his campaign was actually folding there.

    But as unsatisfactory as the film is on the domestic front, in this reviewer’s opinion, it is even worse on Johnson’s foreign policy. We will address this issue in Part 2.

    see Part 2

  • The One and Only Dick Gregory

    The One and Only Dick Gregory


    The only comedian I can think of who I would compare to the late Dick Gregory is Mort Sahl. They were both socio-political themed stand-up comedians who, at the peak of their careers, decided to gamble fame and fortune for their political ideals. Sahl did it by deciding to become an investigator for Jim Garrison on the JFK case. Gregory did it for civil rights activists Medgar Evers and then Martin Luther King. He later became involved with people like Robert Groden and Mark Lane on the JFK case and the King case.

    The current documentary about Dick Gregory on Showtime, The One and Only Dick Gregory, makes note of the fact that, by 1962, Gregory was probably the hottest comedian in America. In fact, one of the interview subjects, Harry Belafonte, calls him the greatest political comedian ever.

    Gregory was born in St. Louis, went to high school there, and then attended Southern Illinois University on a track scholarship. He was drafted into the army and won some talent shows as a comedian. When he returned from the service, he dropped out of college and went to Chicago to try and become a professional comedian. He was one of the very few comedians who decided to make racial issues funny: “Segregation is not all bad. Have you ever heard of a collision where the people in the back of the bus got hurt?”

    This kind of comedy got him noted in both Chicago and New York City. One of his first record albums, East and West, was done in New York. (Between 1961 and 1964, he did seven albums.) When he returned to Chicago, he received what most commentators note as his big break. He replaced Professor Irwin Corey for what was supposed to be one night at the Playboy Club. One of the jokes he cracked that night went like this: “I understand there are a good many Southerners in the room tonight. I know the South very well, I spent twenty years there one night.” He was such a hit that the one-night stand turned into six weeks. One notice read as follows:

    Dick Gregory, age 28, has become the first Negro comedian to make his way into the nightlife club big time.

    Another said:

    What makes Gregory refreshing is not only that he feels secure enough to joke about the trials and triumphs of his own race, but that he can laugh, in a sort of brotherhood of humor, with white men about their own problems…

    This highly successful Chicago appearance caught the attention of Jack Paar. After Steve Allen, Paar was the second steady host of The Tonight Show. It was Paar who made the show into the institution it became. Paar was not just funny. He was intelligent, informed, curious, and principled. In other words, he was just the kind of late-night host who Dick Gregory would appeal to. As the comedian later added, it was not just the fact that Paar had him on national television, it was what happened afterwards. The host invited him over to the panel to talk. That is what was important. At that time, such a display of integration was unusual. According to the film, it blew the NBC switchboard out. Because of his new notoriety, CBS newsman Mike Wallace did a profile of him.

    From there it was on to the likes of Ed Sullivan and Merv Griffin. Greg, as his friends called him, also wrote an autobiography called Nigger, co-written with Robert Lipsyte. Amazingly, in nearly sixty years, that book has never been out of print.

    II

    At this point in the film, director/writer Andre Gaines begins to describe his subject’s transition from a pointed stand-up comic to a socio-political activist. As the sixties heated up, it wasn’t enough for Dick Gregory to say things like, “Football is the only place where a black man can knock down a white man and 40,000 people cheer.” Or, in satirizing liberals, “They all say, some of my best friends are colored, but there just aren’t that many of us.” Or in pointing out the hypocrisy of the court system: “A black guy robs a bank of $20,000 and he gets four years in Alcatraz. A white guy embezzles 3 million and he gets three years.” As civil rights demonstrations broke out in the south, Greg began to empathize with what was happening. As he put it, since he was from the north, he was not really aware of how bad the Jim Crow situation was down south. Even though he was making a lot of money at this time and he was peaking in his professional career, he decided that, whatever the consequences, he was going to get involved with the struggle for civil rights.

    And he began to adjust his humor as this happened: “A white guy kills 2 black demonstrators with his car and the cop arrests the dead guy 500 yards away for leaving the scene of an accident.” He did civil rights work first for Medgar Evers, who he very much admired for his voter registration drives. Gregory also became involved with the famous case of the three missing civil rights workers in Neshoba County, Mississippi—James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner. He suspected the sheriff’s office was involved. He then offered a reward for information on the case. The FBI followed his lead of offering reward money. It worked. The bodies were found and the case was solved.

    The film notes that his publicist sued him at this time, since Greg had sacrificed $100,000 worth of appearances—the equivalent of about a million bucks today—in order to work the South with Medgar. At this time, Gregory was getting $5,000 per nightclub/concert appearance. Instead, he chose to risk getting arrested by participating in civil rights drives in places like Mississippi and Alabama.

    As the film shows, he did get arrested. Beyond that, he got his arm broken while being battered with a baseball bat. (Dick Gregory and Mark Lane, Murder in Memphis, ebook version, p. 29) He was very much depressed when Evers was assassinated in the summer of 1963. But he pressed on, getting arrested even more. As he put it, what these activists were doing was more important than what he was doing. When the famous 1965 Watts riots broke out in Los Angeles, he said on TV, “I just got back from Los Angeles, Vietnam.” The film dramatizes his message at the time. Greg was saying that this was not a problem confined to the black community, it was an American problem. The film then juxtaposes excerpts from rioting in Harlem in 1964 with those from Ferguson in 2014.

    From here, the film begins to show that, as Gregory now became associated with Martin Luther King, like King, he began to become a vociferous critic of the Vietnam War. And as this occurred, J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI began to keep files on the comedian; they also tapped his phone and drew up methods of neutralizing his impact. Greg decided that, for this particular anti-war message, he had to speak at colleges and universities. He began to attract large crowds and he would harangue the United States for building this Military Industrial Complex and using it against the people of Vietnam. The regents of the University of Tennessee banned him from speaking on campus. They said he was an “extreme racist” and his presence would insult much of the state’s citizenry. The students sued and they hired noted radical lawyer William Kunstler to present their case. They won in court and Gregory finally spoke there in 1970. In 1969, Gregory spoke at the huge moratorium against the war in Washington DC.

    Not mentioned by the film are the comedian’s political races. Dick Gregory (unsuccessfully) ran against Richard J. Daley for the office of mayor of Chicago in 1967. He then ran as a write-in candidate for the President of the United States in 1968. (Gregory and Lane, p. 7) In some states, Mark Lane was his running mate. In some other states, his running mate was Dr. Benjamin Spock, the famous pediatrician. Gregory later wrote one of his many books about this campaign. That election attempt landed him on Richard Nixon’s enemies list.

    As the film depicts, King’s assassination resulted in a huge wave of riots in well over 100 cities across America. The year 1968 almost brought the United States to a point of civil war. Gregory humorously commented on this state of siege. On stage, he would bring out a large violin case. He opened it and pulled out a tommy gun. He then pulled out a bow and started playing the machine gun.

    III

    At this point, the film notes that one of the methods Greg used to protest the war was by fasting. And I thought that it would be at this juncture that writer/director Andre Gaines would cut to the event that was probably the crystallization of Greg’s political career. I am, of course, referring to the night of March 6, 1975. That was when the Zapruder film was shown for the first time on national television. The three main guests that night on the program Good Night America were Geraldo Rivera as host, Robert Groden as the photo technician who had recovered a copy of the film from Life magazine, and Dick Gregory. It is not an understatement to say that the showing of this film on national TV electrified America. It put the Kennedy assassination back on the national agenda. It now became a topic of conversation at lunch and around water coolers at work.

    By this time, Dick Gregory had become convinced that something had gone politically wrong with America after 1968. And, on top of that, the fact that JFK, Malcolm X, King, and Bobby Kennedy had all been snuffed out in a span of five years—that was just too much to swallow as simply a coincidence.

    Gregory had known King and President Kennedy. Greg was at the March on Washington, which was sponsored by the White House and at which King had spoken so memorably. (Gregory and Lane, p. 6) He had been asked to come down to Birmingham in 1963 for the huge demonstration that several civil rights leaders had combined forces on. President Kennedy called him at home and asked him not to go, since they were working on a solution to the conflict and further demonstrations could imperil it. Greg appreciated the call, but said he felt he had to go. (ibid, pp. 30–33)

    As the comedian told this reviewer, when he returned from Birmingham, his wife told him that Kennedy had called again and wanted him to return his call the moment he got in. Gregory noted the late hour, but his wife said JFK told her it did not matter what time it was. So Dick Gregory called the White House and Kennedy picked up the phone. The president said to the comedian words to the effect that he needed to know everything that happened in Birmingham. Greg went on for about ten minutes describing the whole ugly mess. When he was done, Kennedy replied with “Oh, we’ve got those bastards now!” At this comment, Gregory started weeping. (2003 Interview with Joe Madison and Gregory in Washington on WOL Radio One)

    This is probably the reason he was quite interested in Kennedy’s assassination. But Greg was even closer to King. And the film shows them on stage together. In 1977, Mark Lane and Dick Gregory combined to author a book on King’s assassination. At that time, it was titled Code Name Zorro, since they had learned from FBI agent Arthur Murtaugh that “Zorro” was the FBI’s moniker for King. When it was republished in a revised version in 1993, the volume was now titled Murder in Memphis. To this day, it is a seminal book on the King case.

    Very early in that volume, Gregory notes that it was when King turned against the Vietnam War that his image in the public mind was altered.

    When King made his famous speech on April 4, 1967, in New York condemning the conflict in Vietnam, he was now perceived as an enemy of the Power Elite. (Gregory and Lane, p. 6) Later in the book, Greg outlines how even those involved in the civil rights movement were taken aback by King’s harsh stand on the Vietnam issue, for the simple reason that they knew that Vietnam had become President Johnson’s personal fiefdom. He was the one who had escalated that war to a magnitude beyond President Kennedy’s imagination. These other civil rights leaders understood that there was a danger that Johnson would take King’s condemnation as a personal assault and the president would turn his back on their cause. (Gregory and Lane, p. 51) And as Greg said so perceptively later in that book, King was expanding his vision of American civil rights to universal human rights. (ibid, p. 56)

    King’s anti-Vietnam War speech was criticized by both the New York Times and Washington Post. It’s hard to comprehend today, but both of those MSM outlets were still supporting what Johnson was doing in Indochina at that time. (Click here for details) As Gregory notes in Murder in Memphis, it was William Pepper’s famous photo essay in Ramparts magazine that had energized King in this regard. (Click here for details)

    IV

    But as Gregory also points out in Murder in Memphis, the antipathy for King amid the Power Elite was exponentially increased when he also announced his plans for a Poor People’s March in Washington. There was a good reason for this march. As many commentators have noted, what had happened under Johnson was simple to comprehend. And, in fact, he himself knew it. Johnson’s vision of a Great Society had crashed on the shores of Da Nang in Vietnam. Or as King himself had declared:

    Many of the very programs we are talking about have been stifled because of the war in Vietnam. I am absolutely convinced that the frustrations are going to increase in the ghettoes of our nation as along as the war continues. (Gregory and Lane, p. 54)

    In other words, as King said to newsman Sander Vanocur, the dream he talked about in his March on Washington speech in 1963 had, in some respects—between the race riots and Vietnam—become a nightmare. As Gregory noted, the Poor People’s March posed the possibility of exposing this nightmare, and not just to LBJ, but congress. In fact, Murder in Memphis contains an appendix in which Senator Robert Byrd made a vituperative speech against it. (Speech of March 29, 1968) The Poor People’s March provoked meetings at the White House, the Department of Justice, the Pentagon, the Metropolitan Police, and the FBI. (ibid, p. 57; the best book on this is probably Gerald McKnight’s The Last Crusade published in 1998) The combination of King’s assassination, plus the massive interference and surveillance with the march turned it into a failure.

    Dick Gregory was correct when he described King as turning in his last years towards a different agenda. About that there should be little or no doubt:

    In a sense you could say we are engaged in a class struggle, yes. It will be a long and difficult struggle for our program calls for a redistribution of economic power…I feel that this movement in behalf of the poor is the most moral thing—it is saying that every man is an heir to a legacy of dignity and worth. (Speech of March, 1968)

    Or as King—echoing Bobby Kennedy—put it more succinctly: “What good it is to be allowed to eat in a restaurant, if you can’t afford a hamburger.” (Sylvie Laurent, King and the Other America, p. x) As Gregory wrote in Murder in Memphis, the dilemma that King was trying to expose was multi-dimensional. It not only would pose problems for Johnson, the White House, and Congress, but it would probably be an international problem. As the comedian wrote:

    What would this do to our image as the richest nation in the world? What about those countries who were not aware of America’s racial problems of poverty and hunger? … White reaction to the planned Poor People’s March was astonishing. A headline in Readers’s Digest magazine a few days before King was killed read, “The United States may face a civil crisis this April when a Poor People’s Army pitches camp in the nations’ capital. (Gregory and Lane, p. 57)

    As Dick Gregory was saying, and as Sylvie Laurent amplified later, King was now trying to stretch his populist coalition. And MLK explicitly stated it in his own terms:

    The unemployed poverty-stricken white man must be made to realize that he is in the very same boat with the Negro. Together, they could exert massive pressure on the government to get jobs for all. Together, they could form a grand alliance. (Laurent, p. 8)

    Due to King’s murder and the powerful forces arrayed against what was left of the Poor People’s March, it failed. As Laurent wrote:

    On June 24, 1968, the makeshift housing Martin Luther King Jr. had dreamt of, built on the mall in Washington DC and known as Resurrection City was wiped out. Police tear gas filled the air. Hundreds of people were arrested. Bulldozers smashed the plywood shacks. (Laurent, p. 1)

    As Richard Nixon later said, it was that image and the dispersal of those people that combined to help elect him. (ibid) The grand alliance King was designing ended up dissipated. The reverse, namely Nixon’s southern strategy, was later used by Ronald Reagan, and then given broadcast voice by Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. King’s unification strategy was now somewhere in the ozone. Roger Ailes’ and Pat Buchanan’s polarization policy ruled the day.

    That would have been a powerful coda with which to end The One and Only Dick Gregory.

    V

    The only trace of this that I could detect was near the very end of the film. On a last kind of 2015 comeback tour, two years before Greg died, there is a brief glance at Pepper’s book The Plot to Kill King on a chair. If I missed something, I hope someone can remind me of it.

    So, what does approximately the last third of the film deal with? Gregory turning into a fitness expert and a health foods businessman. He moved his family to a forty-acre farm in Plymouth, Massachusetts, in 1973. He began to sell vitamins and nutrition products. He also was one of the first to argue for the primacy of natural water in everyone’s diet. He stopped playing nightclubs and there was no more alcohol consumption or smoking for him. Harking back to his college days, he became an avid runner. And his cause now was to erase world hunger. He fasted for that one also.

    He created something called the Bahamian Diet nutrition drink. This ended up being very successful. After having some legal problems in the mid 1980’s which tied up much of his assets, he settled the lawsuit and sold the business for millions.

    But Greg never really lost his affinity to protest injustice. Another part of his life was devoted to exposing the CIA/cocaine scandal of the late nineties. At that time, he actually went out to CIA HQ in Langley, Virginia, and unspooled yellow tape around the building. Because as he said, “We know where the criminals are.”

    Andre Gaines’ film is a passable chronicle of the showbiz side of Dick Gregory, but it does not do justice to what made the man the true icon he was. Perhaps that was the price of getting people like Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle and Kevin Hart to appear. If it was not, then Gaines made a mistake. His film should be called The One and Only Dick Gregory (Censored Version).

  • Deep Fake Politics: Empire and the Criminalization of the State

    Deep Fake Politics: Empire and the Criminalization of the State


    In the two previous installments of this review of Can’t Get You Out of My Head (CGYOMH) by Adam Curtis, I covered his poor handling of things like financial chicanery, monetary policy, oil markets, the JFK assassination, and “conspiracy theories” in general. To conclude this review, I am going to cover some of the ways in which Adam Curtis beguiles the audience on crucial issues such as state criminality, the dual state, geopolitics, Western imperialism, and the West’s adversaries—Russia and China specifically. Finally, I conclude with a brief summation of the CGYOMH and an exhortation for us all to take a large grain of salt with anything produced by this BBC pied piper.

    A Shallow Take on the Deep State

    Curtis has a strange way of grappling with US imperialism and the country’s secret government which emerged after World War II. In the fifth episode of CGYOMH, Curtis mentions that the CIA had been manipulating political systems and overthrowing governments around the world without the knowledge of the US public. He then brings up the illustrious Hans Morgenthau and his assessments of the American shadow government. This whole section is baffling to me. First, Curtis identifies Morgenthau as “one of the most senior members of the US State Department.” Then he says that Morgenthau “had given this hidden system of power a name, […] the dual state.” According to Curtis, Morgenthau deemed this duality necessary because of the realities of international power politics. These dark clandestine tactics needed to be hidden from the public because acknowledging them would undermine Americans’ beliefs in their democracy and in their exceptionalism—beliefs that were necessary in the Cold War.

    Curtis states that the US in the Cold War ran covert operations to overthrow 26 foreign governments in 66 attempts. Morgenthau, it is stated in CGYOMY, believed that this secrecy was creating a dangerous time bomb at the heart of America. Beginning in the 1960’s, these secrets began to be exposed by writers like former CIA officer Miles Copeland. In this section, Curtis even runs footage of a trailer from the original film adaptation of The Quiet American. The trailer is a montage featuring narration and clips from the movie which depict an American agent sowing chaos and violence “across all the Orient.” The film is certainly relevant to the discussion. That said, Curtis could have told the audience that the protagonist of the book and film is widely understood to be based on the activities of infamous CIA officer Edward Lansdale. Furthermore, Curtis could have also told the audience that Lansdale himself—acting on behalf of the CIA—was involved in the production of the film adaptation. To that end, the plot of the film was changed in such a way as to obscure the titular Quiet American’s responsibility for a terror bombing. The episode illustrates how the secret government was even manipulating the public through Hollywood—going so far as to alter those rare, informed critiques of US neocolonial imperialism in literature and film.

    Morgenthau, the Rockefellers and The University of Chicago

    But I digress. As mentioned above, Curtis’ treatment of Morgenthau and the dual state is strange. For one thing, Morgenthau did not give the dual state its name. The term comes from a German émigré named Ernst Fraenkel and his 1941 book, The Dual State: A Contribution to the Study of Dictatorship. The book described how alongside the normative state which operated lawfully, there emerged a prerogative state which operated lawlessly to serve as the guardian of the normative state.[1] Furthermore, Morgenthau is not most notable for being “one of the most senior members of the US State Department.” As far as I know, he never actually occupied a high position in the state department, though he did work there as a consultant under different US presidential administrations. Morgenthau is, however, quite famous for being the modern seminal classical realist philosopher in the field of international relations—a subdiscipline of political science. Why Curtis omits this is a mystery.

    In fact, Morgenthau’s actual academic position during those years is very relevant to Curtis’ discussion of the dual state—i.e., CGYMONH’s exploration of the lawlessness of America’s postwar secret government, because Morgenthau was a professor at the University of Chicago. Famously described as Standard Oil University by Upton Sinclair, the University of Chicago has a unique relationship to the right-wing brain trust that has informed many imperial US strategies in terms of foreign policy and political economy. Perhaps most infamously, the University served as an incubator of sorts for the neoconservative, right-wing imperialists who were heavily influenced by German émigré Leo Strauss.

    Strauss, who I will return to, himself first received Rockefeller funding thanks to the intervention of Carl Schmitt[2]—the jurist, political theorist, and prominent Nazi whose ideas informed the legal thinking of the Third Reich. In his exploration of the dual state, Curtis would have been better served looking at Carl Schmitt in order to situate the lawless US pursuit of “security.” Summarizing Schmitt, I have written elsewhere[3] that he

    …wrote famously, “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.”[4] The state of exception “is not codified in the existing legal order.” It is “characterized as a case of extreme peril, a danger to the existence of the state.” The gravity of the state of exception is such that “it cannot be circumscribed factually and made to conform to a preformed law.”[5] Sovereignty for Schmitt is defined by the ability to decide when the state of exception exists and how it may be eliminated. Any liberal constitution can hope, at best, to mandate the party with which sovereignty rests.[6]

    In other segments of CGYOMH, Curtis mentions the critiques of Western leftists who argued that the essence of fascism had not been extinguished with the Allied victory in World War II. In the prior installment of this review, I covered Curtis’ shortcomings in terms of exploring this perspective. In his treatment of lawlessness and the dual state, Curtis compounds those errors. With Carl Schmitt and his University of Chicago descendants, there is a fairly clear German antecedent to the institutionalization of American state criminality that was established with the outbreak of the Cold War and never abandoned (i.e., an historical precursor to the lawlessness of a nominal constitutional republic). The reader may recoil at such a comparison, but the analogy is not particularly hard to grasp, psychic resistance notwithstanding. Even in terms of their respective creations, both were borne of bogus pretexts which conjured an existentially threatening Communist menace. The exceptionalist or legally unconstrained Nazi state took its mature form in the wake of the Reichstag Fire, a terror spectacle which the Nazis likely facilitated.[7] Likewise, much of the early postwar hysteria over the Soviet Union derived from erroneous Anglo-UK accusations that Stalin had grossly violated the postwar terms regarding Eastern Europe which had been negotiated at Yalta.

    All this is not to say the US is a new Nazi Germany. Only Nazi Germany was Nazi Germany, just as only the US empire is the US empire. That said, it is worth noting that in key national security documents like NSC 68, Cold War US policymakers explicitly argued for an exceptionalist approach to combating the supposedly existential threat posed by the Soviet Union.[8] I have written that such documents, in effect, served to grant

    …authority to the state to covertly conspire to violate the law. Since the US Constitution’s supremacy clause establishes that ratified treaties are “the supreme law in the land” and the US-ratified UN Charter outlaws aggression or even the threat of aggression between states, CIA covert operations are carried out in a state of exception. Given that the authority for these operations has never been suspended and the operations have been a significant structural component of the US-led world order, [I coined] the term exceptionism […] to describe the historical fact of institutionalized state criminality.[9]

    Schmitt, Strauss, and the Cold War

    To explain the duality and lawlessness of modern Western states, it is practically essential to discuss Carl Schmitt. In the German case, the Weimar Republic gave rise to a despotic dualism that quickly devoured the Republic, such as it was. In the US, the state’s lawful/lawless duality arose from the Cold War national security state which had been empowered by the supposed existential threat posed by communism. In the US case, the lawful democratic state (or public state) was never completely subsumed by authoritarian forces. This remains true, even if—as I have argued—anti-democratic forces in US society have consolidated so much wealth and power as to constitute a deep state that exercises control and/or veto power over democracy and the national security state. In my dissertation, I describe a tripartite state comprised of the public state, the security state, and a deep state.[10]

    Let us return to Leo Strauss, Morgenthau’s colleague at the University of Chicago. Strauss was an anti-Enlightenment thinker whose affinity for liberal democracy went only so far as to acknowledge that it served an important mythical function in legitimizing the hegemonic US project. One German commentator summarizes Strauss’ thinking about democracy:

    [L]iberal democracies such as the Weimar Republic are not viable in the long term, since they do not offer their citizens any religious and moral footings. The practical consequence of this philosophy is fatal. According to its tenets, the elites have the right, and even the obligation, to manipulate the truth. Just as Plato recommends, they can take refuge in “pious lies” and in selective use of the truth.[11]

    To summarize, Strauss and his mentor (of sorts) Carl Schmitt were both essentially Hobbesians. In the tradition of English thinker Thomas Hobbes, they saw the world as a dangerous and threatening place, the peril of which necessitates the creation of—and submission to—“the sovereign” or more simply, the state. The overriding imperative of the state is security, because without it, all of society is imperiled. Therefore, any measures necessary to secure the state are not just acceptable, but basically necessary. Germany infamously took Schmitt’s Hobbesian logic to a notable conclusion. Writing largely after World War II in the US, Strauss in essence advocated for state duality. He grudgingly accepted liberal democratic myths and formal institutions, while at the same time advocating for wise men like himself and his acolytes to counsel leaders, deceive instrumentally, and effect desired political outcomes in a top-down fashion. It is a mystery as to why Curtis does not mention Strauss given that the philosopher was a central figure in his interesting, but flawed, documentary series, The Power of Nightmares.

    Let us return now to CGYOMY’s treatment of Morgenthau. Curtis offers a brief summation of the realist philosopher’s thinking on the dual state that is, at best, very incomplete—and quite likely wrong. Previously and elsewhere, I wrote about Morgenthau in the same context that Curtis situates him in.

    As a 20th century analog of Thomas Hobbes, Schmitt elucidated a grim, illiberal understanding of the true nature of power within the state. Recognizing this same illiberal essence, other theorists described the “state of exception” and the securitization of politics as a slippery slope that would create authoritarianism, perhaps with pseudo-democratic trappings.[12] In the early years of the Cold War, seminal realist Hans Morgenthau would comment on these illiberal forms emerging within the American political system. He identified a change in the control of operations within the U.S. State Department. The shift was toward rule according to the dictates of “security.” Morgenthau wrote, “This shift has occurred in all modern totalitarian states and has given rise to a phenomenon which has been aptly called the ‘dual state’” In a dual state, power nominally rests with those legally holding authority, but in effect, “by virtue of their power over life and death, the agents of the secret police—coordinated to, but independent from the official makers of decision—at the very least exert an effective veto over decisions.”[13] Thus does Morgenthau describe a dynamic akin to Schmitt’s conception of sovereignty.

    To wit, Morgenthau did expound on Schmittian ideas about the sovereign and he addressed the dual state concept derived from two of the Germans discussed above: Carl Schmitt and Ernst Frankel.[14] To my knowledge, however, Morgenthau’s most noteworthy exploration of the subject was the 1955 New Republic article cited above. In this essay, he did not argue that the emergence of this dual state was positive or necessary. Rather, he bemoaned how the US State Department had been decimated by the dictates of an overweening security apparatus and he explicitly situated this dual state in the context of totalitarianism. The Nazi example would have been obviously at the forefront of Morgenthau’s mind. At the very least, Curtis should have mentioned the New Republic article and its critique, since it was written in a major US magazine. More recently, the 1955 Morgenthau essay was discussed in a scholarly article on the subject of the deep state by Swedish scholar Ola Tunander in 2009.[15]

    Curtis touches on the institutionalized lawlessness and thus the duality of the state in the US, but he fails to hash out the implications. With his blinkered treatment of Morgenthau, his omission of Schmitt and Strauss, and with his treatment of the JFK assassination, the filmmaker cannot bring himself to confront the American deep state and the cataclysmic historical episodes in which it was decisive. Discussed in greater depth in the previous installment of this review, Dallas was a coup d’état profounde—a stroke of the deep state. It is nonetheless interesting that Curtis spent any time at all covering the assassination and the deep state.[16]

    Imperial Security

    The historical limited hangout approach deployed by Curtis permeates the accounts of Western imperialism in CGYOMH. At one point, the film briefly covers the assassination of Congo’s first elected prime minister, Patrice Lumumba. To his credit, Curtis acknowledges CIA involvement in Lumumba’s death. He acknowledges that the US installed the brutal puppet Joseph Mobutu, but for some reason he fails to mention that it was Mobutu’s forces who arranged the execution of Lumumba. He states that the abrupt Belgian withdrawal plunged Congo into crisis. But he neglects to mention that this was by design—part of a plot to break away from Congo its most resource rich province of Katanga.[17] Curtis credulously reports that the US was worried that without intervention, Congo’s copper might fall into communist hands. He neglects to mention that it was the West’s refusal of help which forced Lumumba to seek Soviet aid. There is reason to believe that this was done by design, as it then gave Allen Dulles the pretext to assassinate Lumumba—an action which Eisenhower went on to authorize.

    The assassination was carried out in such a time and fashion as to indicate that people like Dulles feared a change in policy under the incoming Kennedy administration. Kennedy’s policy was much more sympathetic to Lumumba than that of Eisenhower and Dulles, but the young Congolese prime minister was killed 72 hours before Kennedy had been sworn in as president. With the facts selected and presented as they are in CGYOMH, the reader gets the impression that policies such as this were decided on the basis of myopic, but earnest, anticommunism. With Curtis, the obvious economic interests are ignored or minimized. But with Curtis, the implication is that another set of those darn bureaucrats are once again too much enthrall to another set of wrongheaded ideas.

    When one takes the longer view, this explanation falls apart. As one of the most resource-rich places in the world, Congo was brutally exploited and expropriated by Europeans for more than a century before the Cold War. During the Cold War, the plunder continued, overseen by the US-installed puppet following the assassination of Lumumba, the man who famously asserted that the resource wealth of Congo should be used for the benefit of the Congolese people. After the Cold War and up to the present day, the Congolese have been subjected to unspeakable violence on a massive scale, while the pillage of its resources has continued apace. But since Curtis filters everything through his anti-leftist lens, he cannot present cogent analysis, even when the episodes under discussion are pregnant with weighty implications.

    The Dark Art of Western Geopolitics

    In CGYOMH, Curtis looks at numerous examples of Western imperialism in places like Iraq, China, and Africa. The series would have benefitted from a discussion of geopolitics—specifically the theories of Halford Mackinder and the more contemporary policymakers and scholars who have examined Mackinder’s ideas and their applications. The Brit Mackinder looked at the world and saw that Europe, Asia, and Africa were really one massive “world island” containing most of the world’s resources and productive capacity. With Britain located on the periphery of the world island, its imperial strategists needed to assert control over key areas and destabilize or Balkanize regions to preclude any counter-hegemonic force from uniting the enormous landmass.

    The British applied this logic throughout their imperial reign. Both world wars can be seen, in part, as consequences of the applications of Mackinder’s theses. As one example, the Anglo establishment was much alarmed by Germany’s proposed Berlin-Baghdad railway. This project would have integrated Germany, Central Europe, the Balkans, and the oil-rich Middle East into a massive German-led industrial powerhouse. Interestingly, the radical historian Guido Preparata sees a Russian hand in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and Russia was, of course, Britain’s ally at the time.[18] Prior to World War II, the Soviet Union’s existence threatened the great powers in Western Europe and the US. This no doubt informed the thinking of Anglo-US elites who helped rebuild and fuel, respectively, the German and Japanese war machines. With other factors at work—and with geopolitics not being an exact science—the anti-Soviet Anglo-American elites did not get their preferred outcome. Germany chose softer targets first before launching their ultimately ruinous campaign against the Soviet Union almost two years later.

    When the Japanese got into military conflict with the Soviets in 1939, they were soundly defeated at Nomohan. In the aftermath, Japan signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR. This would prove crucial in shaping the war’s outcome. In 1941, the Germans invaded Russia and were headed for Moscow. Since there was little threat of a Japanese invasion, the Soviets were able to send divisions from the Far East and stop the Germans just short of the capitol. The Soviet-Japanese non-aggression pact held until the last days of the war when Soviet forces swept through Manchuria, actually killing more Japanese than the atomic bombings. Though in Western historical memory, Hiroshima and Nagasaki quickly overshadowed the Soviet invasion, considerable evidence indicates that it was the crushing Japanese defeat in Manchukuo—along with the threat of an impending Soviet attack on the main islands—that actually prompted the Japanese surrender to the Americans.[19]

    As historian Alfred McCoy points out, a central strategy of the postwar US empire was to rebuild the defeated Axis powers and make them essentially US satellites. With Germany and Japan reconstructed as largely demilitarized, capitalist industrial powerhouses, the US controlled both “axial ends” of Eurasia, Mackinder’s “world island.”[20] Trade and capital flows went across the Atlantic and across the Pacific, making the US the richest empire in world history. This was by design. In retrospect, the US war in the Pacific was particularly a war for postwar hegemony. And some have argued the dual atomic bombs kept Russia out of Japan.

    The American Century

    American claims to legitimate possession over Hawaii and the Philippines—where the Japanese attacked the US—were dubious at best. They are part of a history that goes all the way back to the 1850’s. Following the imperialist Mexican-American War and the US acquisition of California, enterprising officials and businessmen looked to the Pacific to enrich the US and themselves. Starting as early as Matthew Perry’s 1853 expedition to Edo, US trade and investment in the Pacific were too lucrative to pass up. Hence, we have the absurd fact that in the Spanish-American War, ostensibly fought for Cuban independence, the first shots were fired as the US attacked the Spanish Philippines.

    Prior to US entry into World War II, Life magazine publisher Henry Luce made a case for American empire. As a mouthpiece for the Wall Street-dominated Council on Foreign Relations, Luce made the argument in his “American Century” essay, laying out the case for US hegemony over the postwar capitalist world. While much of his essay was couched in “liberal” rhetoric, in one passage he was quite candid about Asia.

    Our thinking of world trade today is on ridiculously small terms. For example, we think of Asia as being worth only a few hundred millions a year to us. Actually, in the decades to come Asia will be worth to us exactly zero—or else it will be worth to us four, five, ten billions of dollars a year. And the latter are the terms we must think in, or else confess a pitiful impotence.[21]

    Geopolitics, control of resources, markets, financial and political systems…these are the aspects of the US hegemonic reign that allow us to make sense of the activities of the intelligence agencies, the military, the business elites, and the public officials who serve these constituencies. Curtis fails to offer cogent analysis of these deep political issues. Thus, the quirky myopia of his commentary on things like covert operations, the dual state, and “humanitarian intervention.” It is worth asking whether British state television would ever sponsor an honest, penetrating documentary film that would bring the reality of our crumbling systems to a vast audience. Does the BBC exist to act in the public interest by providing the range and depth of programming needed for enlightened democratic public debate? Or does the prestige media outlet serve to entertain and manufacture consent?

    Losing the Great Game on the Eurasian Chessboard

    The most famous contemporary adherent of Mackinder’s geopolitical theories was Zbigniew Brzezinski. Co-founder of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission and US National Security Advisor under Carter, Brzezinski expounded on post-Cold War geopolitics with his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. In it, he argued that “keep[ing] the barbarians from coming together” was a “grand imperative of imperial geostrategy.”[22] By “barbarians,” Brzezinski was referring to Russia and China. These two countries have indeed come much closer together in the intervening years, largely in response to their shared grievances under US hegemony. Termed the “rules-based liberal international order” by US officials and their media/academic courtiers, the Post-Cold War era of unipolar US dominance has by-and-large allowed the US to essentially make—and break—the “rules” of international politics according to its whims. A small number of countries have resisted US dominance with varying degrees of success. In the 21st century, three of them—Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya—saw their governments overthrown and their societies devastated. In Eurasia, an “axis of resistance” has emerged which includes most notably China, Russia, Iran, and Syria—with Iraq in the wings as the US still refuses to honor the Iraqi parliament’s request to withdraw US military forces from the country.

    In this context, it should be noted that much of Curtis’ previous documentary series, Hyper-Normalization, devoted much screen time to denigrating two Western targets—Libya and Syria—in a multitude of dubious ways. True to form, the real villains in CGYOMH are (surprise!) Russia and China. The countries, according to Curtis, have one thing in common: they believe in nothing. Curtis states this repeatedly, though he contradicts himself, somewhat, by also stating that the Chinese only believe in money. The BBC should spring for some kind of editor to make sure that Curtis’ chauvinism is at least internally consistent, but, alas, such is not the case.

    The Soviet Union of CGYOMH appears to be the most depressing society that ever existed. Stock footage is used to depict a country of hopeless, nihilistic, victims of communism. While the post-Soviet era of Boris Yeltsin is acknowledged as a disaster, Curtis minimizes the extent to which the shock therapy privatization was a Western operation that enriched Western finance—along with that class of underworld-connected figures who became known as the oligarchs following their seizure of the Russia’s patrimony. Curtis also does not adequately explore the US interference on behalf of Boris Yeltsin in the 1996 Russian election. Portrayed in a glowingly brazen fashion on the cover of Time magazine, those US operations were of a scale far greater than even the most fanciful accusations of Russian interference in the 2016 US election.

    The true Russian villain of CGYOMH, predictably, is Vladimir Putin. To my surprise, and to the credit of Adam Curtis, he does largely dismiss Russiagate. Without spending too much time on the subject, Curtis suggests that Russiagate paranoia was symptomatic of US anomie, insecurity, and paranoia. On the one hand, it is good that even with his highly negative take on Russia, Curtis doesn’t stoop to regurgitating Russiagate claims that are thoroughly debunked—most notably by Aaron Mate in outlets like The Nation magazine and The Grayzone website. Too bad Curtis doesn’t look at the role of the dual/deep state in concocting and maintaining the hoax. CGYOMH spends a good amount of time addressing various intelligence capers. It could have been illuminating to see the Russiagate saga portrayed in a well-produced documentary film.

    Putin: That Dirty Guy!

    Instead, Curtis tells us that the dream of turning Russia into a liberal democracy went wrong and a new rapacious oligarchy came to power. At the highest levels of power, did the US ever want to see Russia become a prosperous democracy? Russia was subjected to structural economic changes that much of the rest of the world has experienced under US hegemony—privatization, austerity, massive upward transfer of wealth, and capital flight. Given the negative results of neoliberalism in the last 40+ years, why is it not assumed that those outcomes are intentionally brought about to further enrich US/Western elites and immiserate most people on purpose?

    Furthermore, with Russia, there are additional reasons to suspect that US elites deliberately wrecked and polarized Russian society. After the Gulf War, neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz said, “[W]e’ve got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes—Syria, Iran [sic], Iraq—before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.”[23] Subsequent covert and overt US actions in the Balkans, Georgia, Libya, Ukraine, and Syria all demonstrate how the US has time and again launched military interventions in ways that threatened post-Soviet Russia’s national interests. US elites and the corporate media were major supporters of Boris Yeltsin, whose reign was an unmitigated disaster for the Russian people. These same actors now despise Vladimir Putin, a statesman who—shortcomings notwithstanding—has presided over an era in which conditions in Russia have much improved from the situation he inherited. The US media treatment of the two Russian leaders belies any claims of made about US leaders being concerned about the well-being of the Russian people in the Putin era.

    In episode six of CGYOMH, Curtis states that Putin was selected by the Russian oligarchs to rule Russia. My understanding was that he was first handpicked by Boris Yeltsin—an historical oddity given how the two men seem like polar opposites. At the time of his anointing, Curtis tells us, Putin “was an anonymous bureaucrat running the security service and a man who believed in nothing.” Having installed the nihilist Putin as president, the oligarchs thought they would continue to dominate the country. Then, as Curtis so often tells us, “something unexpected happened.” A nuclear submarine exploded and sank to the ocean floor in August of 2000. The uncertainty about the fate of the crew and the eventual news of their deaths served to outrage Russians.

    Eventually, Vladimir Putin came to Murmansk to address the public and the grieving families. Curtis tells us that Putin, “to save himself, turn[ed] that anger away from himself and towards the very people who put him in power,” i.e., the oligarchs. Putin told Russia that it was the corrupt oligarchs in Moscow who, by stealing everything, had destroyed the Russian military and Russian society. Instead of suggesting that Putin was using his office to address legitimate grievances on behalf of the vast majority of the population, Curtis tells us that Putin had instead merely “discovered a new source of power”—the anger of the people.

    Even with his new source of power, Putin continued to believe in nothing and to have no goals according to CGYOMH. A Russian journalist is quoted talking about how under Putin there is no goal, no plan, no strategy…only reactive tactics with no long-term objectives. Later, Curtis quotes another Russian journalist who claimed that what Putin had really done was to take the corruption of the oligarchs and move some of into the public sector so that Putin and his cronies in the government could get in on the corruption: “The society Putin had created was one in his own image. It too believed in nothing.” The journalist was later murdered, outrage ensued, yet things did not improve. However, oil prices soon exploded, serving to ignite a bonanza of Russian consumerism. Cue the footage of a cat wearing a tiny shark hoodie, sitting atop a Roomba, gliding over a kitchen floor, pursuing a baby duck. This, presumably, is some kind of metaphor for the directionless nihilism of Russia. Take heart, Anglo-Americans: Whatever our problems, we have yet to see such horrors in the freedom-loving West.

    Curtis goes on to check all the obligatory boxes regarding Putin and Russia. The group Pussy Riot makes an annoying appearance. Alexi Navalny, a figure with very little popular following in Russia, is credited by Curtis with “chant[ing] a phrase that redefined Russia” for a, theretofore, apolitical generation. “Party of crooks and thieves!” chanted Navalny. This, we are told, made Putin furious at the ungrateful new middle class. In response, a paranoid Putin “shapeshifted again.” He created the “Popular Front,” a Russian nationalist organization. Worse: “He summoned up a dark, frightening vison from Russia’s past,” saying that “Eurasia was the last defense against a corrupt West that was trying to take over the whole world.” Putin was articulating “a great power nationalism that challenged America’s idea of its exceptionalism.” Putin, Curtis tells us, was promoting “Russian exceptionalism!” Flash to footage of the Nighthawks, a gauche pro-Putin motorcycle gang of Russian nationalists. Curtis then asserts that the Nighthawks are promoting a “paranoid conspiracy theory” that the West, led by the US, is trying to destroy Russia.

    Adam Curtis: Reality Check I

    Where to begin with Curtis’ treatment of Russia? Putin as alleged nihilist is simply a cheap shot. The man is obviously a nationalist. This cannot be lost on Curtis, but he refuses to grant Putin even that. Instead, Putin’s moves to curb the oligarchs’ power and his efforts to resist Western geopolitical moves are all presented as crass opportunism in the service of personal aggrandizement. What should Putin and the Russians have done after Yeltsin? Curtis cannot answer this question, so he never poses it. Putin is indeed a figure that can be criticized on a number of fronts. Most significantly, his measures against the oligarchs went nowhere near far enough. The legitimacy of their vast holdings is dubious at best. If Russia were to function on a more democratic basis, one of the most popular measures would be to nationalize or otherwise redistribute what are widely perceived as the ill-gotten gains of these propertied elites. But since Curtis is first and foremost an anti-leftist, there is no discussion of such possibilities.

    Nor is there any discussion of the steps Putin did take against particular oligarchs that he deemed (with at least some justification) to be acting against the national interest. At least Curtis does not endorse Russiagate. Nor does he mention the implausible Novichok poisonings that Western security services attribute to Putin himself. These omissions are interesting in and of themselves. What of Putin’s assertion that Eurasia is the last bulwark against a US-led West bent on world domination? Curtis mocks the very notion. He does not mention that Zbigniew Brzezinski explicitly made the same argument about Eurasia over twenty years ago. Keep in mind that Brzezinski was, in my estimation, part of the more sober wing of the US imperial hivemind. He could be characterized an Establishment liberal imperialist in contrast to the unhinged neoconservative imperialists.

    Going back further in US-Russian relations, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted JFK to endorse a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union to be carried out in the final months of 1963. Kennedy opposed such an unprecedented act of human barbarism. Notably, Kennedy himself was assassinated under suspicious circumstances during that same proposed window of time. Many commentators have noted how NATO has seemed to move closer and closer to Russian borders.[24] The late Robert Parry wrote often about the role of the US Embassy during the uprising in Ukraine.[25] In short, there is much historical and contemporaneous evidence that the US has sought to encroach Russia—or to at least deprive the country of any ability to impede US global hegemony. Realizing that such is the case, Russia under Putin has allied itself with its historical rival, China.

    Curtis, with China in his Sights

    At this point, it should be clear that Curtis is going to rubbish China, the most long-lived civilization in human history. Like many things in his film, Curtis does not appear to be an expert on Chinese history. On China, CGYOMH is at its most schizophrenic. Curtis acknowledges how the British devastated Chinese society with the Opium Trade and the Opium Wars. He actually soft-pedals much of this. For example, he could have mentioned that Western imperialism led to the social crises which spawned the Taiping Uprising, a conflict that killed perhaps as many as 15 million Chinese around the time of the US Civil War. Or he could have spent more time talking about the indemnities that poor China had to pay to the rich West after the Opium Wars and the so-called “Boxer Rebellion.” As I understand it, the Chinese paid over a trillion dollars’ worth of gold in today’s values as per the terms of the Boxer Protocol. This was for resisting British imperialism! The debt had only grown larger with interest before it was cancelled during World War II, when China allied with the US and British against Axis Japan. Nor is there any mention of how Japanese imperialism against China in the 1930’s was aided by the West. Such was the case up until 1940, when the US put an embargo on Japan after the Japanese invaded French Indochina. The embargo is what led to the attack on Pearl Harbor. All told, the Chinese may have lost 20 million people in the war with Japan.

    What about China after 1949? It being a communist country, Curtis is a harsh critic. Yet true to form, his critique is quirky and idiosyncratic. CGYOMH does not much mention the disastrous Great Leap Forward. Curtis discusses the Cultural Revolution, but does not explain it very well at all. Instead, it is depicted as a bizarre power play by Mao vis-à-vis his ambitious and megalomaniacal wife, Jiang Qing. The amount of time Curtis spends on Jiang Qing is completely out of proportion to her historical importance. To my understanding, she is a deeply unpopular figure in China and she comes across worse to Western students of this period of Chinese history.

    At a time when a deeper understanding of Chinese history in the West is desperately needed, Curtis does a great disservice with CGYOMH. With his cursory mentions of the Opium Wars and later of the racist Fu Manchu movies, he attempts to place a type of multicultural fig leaf over his smug imperial chauvinism. The fall of Dynastic China and the struggles of the People’s Republic of China are never properly contextualized. China was hopelessly disadvantaged against the technologically superior West in the last century of the Qing Dynasty. Due to the predations of the Western powers—and then those of the West’s Asian imitator, Japan—China was in such a horrendous state as to experience the rarest of events: a successful social revolution.

    China after 1949

    Though nominally Marxist, there was no clear way for the victorious Chinese communists to apply Marxist principles to the situation that Mao inherited. Marx saw communism as something that was a progression: from feudalism to capitalism…and eventually to communism. He explicitly stated that a communist revolution could not succeed in China or Russia, because they did not have the necessary levels of development to create the class dynamics necessary to seize the means of production. Those requisite industrialized means of production had not yet come into being outside of the Western European world, thus Marx thought that Germany was the most likely place for Communism to arise. By the 1960’s, with China having suffered some spectacular setbacks, Mao launched the Cultural Revolution. Part political struggle, part cultural crusade—it marked a time of tremendous upheaval in Chinese society. Across China, problems of the revolution were attributed to those elements of the millennia-old Chinese culture that hadn’t been discarded. As a result, the Cultural Revolution produced many tragic spectacles, including the destruction of untold numbers of great and small works of art and architecture as part of a campaign to exorcise a multitude of historical traumas.

    In this context, CGYOMH is frankly offensive in its repeated assertion that the Chinese, like the Russians, believe in nothing. Western imperialism—practiced by Europeans and then the Japanese—wrought unimaginable misery in China. It led to enormous political and cultural upheavals that most Westerners cannot fathom. In the wake of the Cultural Revolution, Deng Xiaoping took over the role as China’s helmsman. The free-market reforms introduced in this era served to slowly modernize China by integrating it into the international economy. This development also caused social dislocations and instability, with matters coming to a head of sorts during the so-called “Tiananmen massacre.”

    In the wake of the events of 1989, Chinese leaders had to grapple with the fact that the legitimizing communist ideology was insufficient. The Cultural Revolution had disoriented the Chinese people. In some sense, it robbed them of their cultural heritage. But the history, myths, legends, and spiritual practices of the past were decidedly incompatible with Marxist ideology. Furthermore, the 1989 reality of vast industrial production for the international market economy was incompatible with Marxism as well as with traditional Chinese culture wherein merchants were regarded ambivalently, at best. In response, China began to grapple anew with the past even as present conditions were changing at a dizzying pace. In the wake of that tumultuous 1989, the Chinese Communist Party commissioned a television production of the Ming Dynasty novel (set at the end of the Han Dynasty), Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Such was the dramatic disavowal of Cultural Revolution era efforts to de-Sinify China. China’s cultural inheritance was rehabilitated in the service of Chinese unity.

    Adam Curtis: Reality Check II

    For Curtis, none of this historical context is necessary. China, like Russia, is to be understood as a profoundly depressing society. Again, as Curtis would have it, China today believes in nothing while also believing only in money. Chinese organized crime is out of control. China is excessively militarized. The Chinese Communist Party is terrified of its own countrymen. The Chinese state surveilles and oppresses the citizenry. Average Chinese people have no good prospects because “the princelings” (the children of Chinese elites) are hoarding all opportunities thanks to “ultra-corruption.” This is the China presented in CGYOMH.

    Adam Curtis wants us to bear witness to the rise and fall of the Chinese official, Bo Xilai. Frankly, I cannot even figure out what CGYOMH is trying to say about Bo Xilai. I followed the story a bit when it was an international scandal in the news. I could never arrive at any salient take on the saga and Curtis does not clarify matters here. Bo did have some populist appeal. And he did seem to have some Anglophile tendencies and associations that the state would not have welcomed given Bo’s position. The whole thing seems like inside baseball—Chinese Communist-style. Perhaps this is the point: China is to be understood as an inscrutable, mysterious Oriental despotism.

    Were Curtis to be objective, he would need to inform the audience that the only significant tangible improvements in the well-being of humanity during the last 40 years are due to Chinese progress. The rest of the world—largely following US-dictated economic prescriptions and models—has stagnated or regressed with the exception of the superrich. Meanwhile in China, a billionaire class did emerge, but not without socio-economic conditions for the general population steadily improving. Unlike in the West, Chinese adults who believe that their children will be more prosperous than themselves are not delusional. China’s “militarism” seems not at all unreasonable given the US military bases encircling the country. Furthermore, China spends much less on the military that the US in both relative and absolute terms.

    For a Westerner to decry Chinese organized crime is laughable given the US governments’ partnerships with underworld figures like Meyer Lansky, “Lucky” Luciano, Santo Trafficante, Sam Giancana, the KMT, the anti-Castro Cubans, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the Contras, Ramon Guillen Davila, etc, etc, etc. And while there are, no doubt, privileged Chinese “princelings,” at least the Chinese can plausibly argue that their well-heeled heirs are not part of a class project to perpetually keep the bulk of the population in a state of material insecurity. In the US (and Curtis’ UK is not that much different), every aspect of life—food, housing, education, health care—is an avenue for rent-seeking and profiteering. And while aspects of the Chinese surveillance state are indeed Orwellian and alarming, it is worth keeping in mind that Western depictions of its adversaries are invariably unreliable and incomplete. Furthermore, and as Ed Snowden revealed, the US is no slouch when it comes to totalitarian surveillance. And even with the vast wealth in the US, we still lead the world in depriving our citizens of liberty in the harshest way: In both absolute and per capita terms, no country incarcerates more of its own citizens than the US.

    The Garden Paths of Adam Curtis

    In conclusion, I cannot recommend Can’t Get You Out of My Head except as a case study in sophisticated propaganda. The filmmaking talents of Adam Curtis are, as ever, impressive. However, the film’s commentary on the West is marred by a consistent failure to acknowledge the class interests that—when properly understood—illuminate so much of the unfortunate foolishness that Curtis attributes to bureaucrats and other members of the middle circles of power. The film’s deeply flawed explanations of financial/monetary matters represent a missed opportunity to explain crucial information to a badly misinformed public. Curtis’ treatments of Kerry Thornley and the JFK assassination are inexcusable, given all that we know now. His superficially revelatory discussion of the dual state represents a lost opportunity to demonstrate how the state has become our world’s most impactful and prolific lawbreaking entity. Lastly, when Curtis skewers entire swaths of humanity like Russia or the Chinese, the viewer should not lose sight of the fact that the filmmaker is on state television defaming the state’s enemies.

    Imperialism, in a word, is what Curtis can’t deal with. All the aspects of CGYOMH which I criticize in these reviews—they all pertain to Curtis and his failure to call an imperial spade a spade. I would like to assign Curtis a few books on the subject. Michael Parenti would be a good place to start. He defined imperialism as “the process whereby the dominant politico-economic interests of one nation expropriate for their own enrichment the land, labor, raw materials, and markets of another people.”[26] Compared to Curtis’ muddled ideology, Parenti’s definition can much better explain what CGYOMH bungles—namely: post-Bretton Woods dollar hegemony, the oil shocks, the Third World debt crises, neoliberalism, anti-communism, CIA covert operations, so-called “humanitarian” wars,” the postwar rise of America’s secret government, the Iraq War, and the various financial crises which always end up benefiting those “dominant politico-economic interests.” Since Curtis cannot bring himself to acknowledge the imperial elephant in the room—except obliquely or in the distant past—he cannot properly explain how the empire has devoured the republic. Without addressing the central thrust of America’s drive for global hegemony, Curtis cannot understand how this enormous concentration of wealth and power has transformed the state.

    Therefore, Curtis cannot illuminate the goings-on in the higher circles. Notably, he cannot hope to understand or explain the JFK assassination. Kennedy, for all his Cold Warrior posturing and/or pronouncements, did understand imperialism. In 1957, he gave a speech condemning French imperialism in Algeria. Said Kennedy on the Senate floor:

    [T]he most powerful single force in the world today is neither communism nor capitalism, neither the H-bomb nor the guided missile—it is man’s eternal desire to be free and independent. The great enemy of that tremendous force of freedom is called, for want of a more precise term, imperialism. […] Thus the single most important test of American foreign policy today is how we meet the challenge of imperialism, what we do to further man’s desire to be free. On this test more than any other, this Nation shall be critically judged by the uncommitted millions in Asia and Africa.[27]

    Much of the shift from colonialism to neocolonialism occurred in the 1950’s and 60’s. It was managed, often through covert operations, by the United States. Kennedy, as seen above, sparred with the Eisenhower administration (most notably, the Dulles brothers) over these policies. He supported the Third World nationalists who wanted their countries’ resources to improve the lives of their own impoverished citizens. Though Kennedy was against communism—sometimes opportunistically so—I believe the evidence today shows that he sought to end the Cold War. He pursued such a course in part to remove the threat of nuclear annihilation. But Kennedy also must have realized that the Cold War was an overriding structural constraint to any serious progressive reforms—both in the US and in the world. As long as every conflict was viewed in the Manichean, zero-sum terms of the Cold War, no US President had freedom to pursue any kind of reasonable foreign policy without encountering tremendous resistance. One can make a good argument that for his threat to the empire, Kennedy was killed. And it makes Curtis look an even bigger fool. Can he really not know that Kerry Thornley despised Kennedy over JFK’s devotion to what Lumumba stood for: a unified, independent, non-imperial Congo. President Johnson returned the US to the CFR/Acheson/Eisenhower/Dulles imperial consensus, reversing JFK’s policies in some of the world’s largest and most resource-rich countries. LBJ’s America would go on to attack the formerly colonized countries of Congo, Brazil, Vietnam, and Indonesia. Only Vietnam was able to hold on to its national sovereignty, but at an enormous cost.

    Curtis cannot grapple with JFK, just as he cannot deal squarely with those other aspects of Anglo-US imperialism. His pitiful rubbishing of the empire’s enemies seems to be his way of saying, in the midst of the collapse of US hegemony, “Look! Look at them! They have bad systems of power too—worse even!” In these tumultuous times, this is not what is needed for British or American audiences. We do not need to be fixated on what our leaders tell us is bad about our much less powerful “enemies.” These are fatal flaws in his filmography. While parts of Adam Curtis films like The Century of the Self and The Power of Nightmares are well-done, they invariably lead the viewer down garden paths in such a way as to muddle understanding and obscure responsibility. Can’t Get You Out of My Head continues in this tradition. All of this is a long-winded—yet by no means exhaustive—way of saying, again, that we need to get Adam Curtis out of our heads.

    see Deep Fake Politics (Part 1): Getting Adam Curtis Out of Your Head

    see Deep Fake Politics (Part 2): The Prankster, the Prosecutor, and the Para-political


    And listen now to:

    Deep Fake Politics—Historiography of the Cold War, the Clandestine State, and Political Economy of US Hegemony with Aaron Good


    [1] Ernst Fraenkel, The Dual State: A Contribution to the Study of Dictatorship (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1941).

    [2] Gerhard Sporl, “The Leo-Conservatives,” Spiegel International, April 8, 2003.

    [3] Aaron Good, “American Exception: Hegemony and the Dissimulation of the State,” Administration and Society 50, no. 1 (2018): pp. 4–29.

    [4] Carl Schmitt, Political Theology, trans. George Schwab (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1985), p. 5.

    [5] Schmitt, Political Theology, p. 6.

    [6] Schmitt, Political Theology, p. 7.

    [7] The fact that this is a controversial statement is an interesting data point for understanding the sociology of Western historiography, especially in light of events such as the Cold War Gladio bombings in Europe. For a comprehensive exploration of Nazi culpability, see: Benjamin Carter Hett, Burning the Reichstag: An Investigation into the Third Reich’s Enduring Mystery (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2014).

    [8] Aaron Good, “American Exception: Hegemony and the Tripartite State,” (Temple University, 2020), pp. 235–6.

    [9] Good, “American Exception: Hegemony and the Tripartite State,” (Temple University, 2020), p. 236.

    [10] Aaron Good, “American Exception: Hegemony and the Tripartite State,” (Temple University, 2020).

    [11] Sporl, “The Leo-Conservatives.”

    [12] For examples, see: Harold D . Lasswell, “The Garrison State,” The American Journal of Sociology 46, no. 4 (1941): pp. 455–68; Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2007); Sheldon Wolin, Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008).

    [13] Hans Morgenthau, “A State of Insecurity,” The New Republic 132, no. 16 (1955), p. 12.

    [14] Fraenkel, The Dual State: A Contribution to the Study of Dictatorship.

    [15] Ola Tunander, “Democratic State vs. Deep State: Approaching the Dual State of the West,” in Government of the Shadows: Parapolitics and Criminal Sovereignty, ed. Eric Wilson (New York, NY: Pluto Press, 2009), pp. 56–722.

    [16] He uses the term dual state, but it is bears much in common with scholarly works on the deep state produced in works like Tunander, “Democratic State vs. Deep State: Approaching the Dual State of the West”; Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America; and Good, “American Exception: Hegemony and the Dissimulation of the State.”

    [17] That imperialist project, as you may recall, was near and dear to Kerry Thornley’s heart. JFK’s opposition to the operation further fueled Thornley’s hatred of the president.

    [18] Guido Giacomo Preparata, Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich (New York, NY: Pluto Press, 2005), pp. 20–21.

    [19] Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick, The Untold History of the United States, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Gallery Books, 2019).

    [20] Alfred W. McCoy, In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of US Global Power (Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books, 2017).

    [21] Henry Luce, “The American Century,” Life, February 17, 1941.

    [22] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1997), p. 40.

    [23] Glenn Greenwald, “Wes Clark and the Neocon Dream,” Salon, November 26, 2011.

    [24] Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson, “Op-Ed: Russia’s got a point: The U.S. broke a NATO promise,” LA Times, May 30, 2016.

    [25] Robert Parry, “The Ukraine Mess That Nuland Made,” Truthout, July 15, 2015.

    [26] Michael Parenti, Against Empire (San Francisco, CA: City Lights Books, 1995), p. 1.

    [27] John F. Kennedy, “Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy in the Senate,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (Washington D.C.), July 2, 1957.

  • Deep Fake Politics: Getting Adam Curtis Out of Your Head

    Deep Fake Politics: Getting Adam Curtis Out of Your Head


    Filmmaker Adam Curtis is a strange figure. He is a skilled film-maker with a unique—if by now cliché—style. His films delve into areas often ignored by “mainstream” media. In that way, he appears to be someone who explores deep politics, the term Peter Scott coined to describe “all those political practices and arrangements, deliberate or not, which are usually repressed rather than acknowledged.”[1] However, as someone steeped in deep political scholarship, Curtis’ omissions and distortions are glaring and egregious. These flaws are very much on display in his latest BBC series, Can’t Get You Out of My Head (hereafter CGYOMH).

    The series is eight hours long and, as such, this review will focus on select key areas—specifically those related to Curtis’ tendentious approach to issues and historical episodes that fall within the realm of deep politics. These topics include his approach to Western finance, his dismissal or obfuscation of state crimes/elite conspiracies, as well as his smug and derisive approach to the West’s enemies du jour (most notably China and Russia). A recurring theme is the fecklessness of Adam Curtis in terms of identifying villainous actors and how they might be confronted for the benefit of humanity. Eventually, this multi-part review will conclude with an assessment of his work and what it reveals about his politics. At the risk of spoiling the conclusion, CGYOMH and Curtis’ other trippy films offer the audience not an illuminating “red pill,” but rather a BBC-approved red placebo.

    Curtis opens CGYOMH with a quote from David Graeber: “The ultimate hidden truth of the world is that it is something that we make and could just as easily make differently.” I have some admiration of Graeber, but I find him an odd choice for Curtis to quote given Graeber’s left-anarchism and Curtis’ carefully contrived “apolitical” posture. Said Curtis to an interviewer, “People often accuse me of being a lefty. That’s complete rubbish. If you look at The Century of the Self, what I’m arguing is something very close to a neo-conservative position.”[2] He also said, “If you ask me what my politics are…I don’t really have any.”[3] Of course, being anti-left is not apolitical, but I digress.

    The world “is something that we make.” This formulation might be useful in a poetic sense. It is obviously a pithy restatement of humanism. Human societies have been created by humans. The ultimate truth of, say, an anthill is that it is made by ants and ants could just as easily make it differently. Unfortunately, and as Graeber would likely agree, the story of civilization is not a rosy tale of shared sacrifice and shared rewards. Civilization has always been predicated on hierarchy—on expropriation and exploitation. Civilization only advanced thanks to exploited persons, the fruits of whose labor allowed others to engage in other activities besides acquiring food. That said, as material capacity improves, civilization offers the means for enlightened progress.

    This fundamental, unresolved contradiction of human civilization should be at the center of any deep investigation into fundamental systemic problems. Alas, this is not the case for CGYOMH. Unlike Curtis, I don’t feel a need to disingenuously claim that I have no perspective on politics and/or history. If pressed, I would describe myself not as a Marxist, but as a Millsian, i.e., a scholar working in the tradition of the sociologist C. Wright Mills. That said, in 2021, it is harder to gainsay Marx’s overarching critiques of capitalism and class structure across time and space. Even Plato, centuries earlier, recognized much of this—though he deemed his insights so dangerous that he used fictional sock puppets like Socrates and Thrasymachus to make his points. Plato’s hypothetical myth of the metals was an acknowledgement of the necessity for stratification—and for the myths that must be deployed to obscure the injustice of it all. Similarly, the allegory of the cave can easily be read as an elitist argument for the technocratic manufacture of consent. Plato, by this reckoning, acknowledged the primacy of class…and saw it as desirable, or at least unavoidable.

    However, as stated above, civilization also offers redemption through enlightenment—the presumptuous control of our fate by way of human reason. My own study of deep politics has led me to conclude that under US hegemony, Western “liberal democracy” has failed to fulfill the promise of the Enlightenment. More precisely: state secrecy, the extreme concentration of politico-economic power, and high criminality have created a despotic anti-democratic system of top-down governance. We live under a political regime obscured and protected by the totalizing corruption and/or co-opt-a-tion of the liberal institutions that supposedly allow for democratic sovereignty. For us to arrive at solutions to our civilization’s crises, we must understand how and why we have arrived at this juncture. Such an undertaking requires a historical narrative. A narrative is, of course “a story,” something that Curtis repeatedly tells viewers is very dangerous. He repeatedly makes some variation of this claim throughout his own films, i.e., through his own stories.

    Curtis and “His Story”

    There are major problems with Curtis’ history, in particular his historical rendering of postwar US hegemony. In the 1950’s, C. Wright Mills wrote about two ideal types of history—drift vs. conspiracy. The older version of history as drift was history as “fate” or “The Unseen Hand.” This is tantamount to imagining the tale of Oedipus as something of an allegory for human history. The contemporary social science version of this is history as “drift” wherein innumerable human decisions collectively produce historical outcomes that no person or persons could have controlled.[4] Wrote Mills, the “view that all is blind drift is largely a fatalist projection of one’s own impotence, [or] a salve of one’s guilt.” The problem with this perspective is not all historical moments are so anarchic. What if the circle of elites with decisive history-making power is rather narrow and centralized, and what if the decisions of these elites are of great consequence? In such a context, history-making power may rest within circles of actors that are known or at least knowable.[5]

    Mills’ second problematic ideal type imagines history as “conspiracy.” This perspective maintains that history plays out along lines determined by compact sets of villains or heroes. Such views represent the failure to attempt the more challenging task of grappling with the ways in which evolving social structures provide opportunities to an elite of power which may or may not capitalize on them. Argued Mills, “To accept either view—of all history as conspiracy or all history as drift—is to relax the effort to understand the facts of power and the ways of the powerful.”[6]

    To restate: both ideal types—drift and conspiracy—are flawed. Elites do collaborate in the creation of history-making decisions, but they do so within various structural, historical, and institutional contexts. As Mills pointed out, the postwar US power elite were “Commanders of power unequaled in human history.”[7] In social science terms, the historical ideal types of drift/conspiracy are analogous to issues of structure/agency. How much can various outcomes be explained by structural factors or by human agency? Both factors can have more or less weight in different situations.

    The overwhelming postwar material power of the US vis-à-vis the rest of the world was a structural fact. That structural reality bequeathed to US policymakers tremendous agency—agency that was deployed to create the structure of the international capitalist system. This is structural power,[8] i.e., “agency of the highest order.”[9] Curtis fails to adequately examine just how and why postwar US elites successfully wielded this structural power to establish the subsequent liberal imperial order. Instead, he repeatedly focuses on marginal characters or bureaucrats or technocrats or those whose ideas inform various actors at the middle levels of power. In this way, Curtis time and again obscures the elite origins of the various ideas and techniques deployed by middling actors to serve power. Curtis thus functions as something of an anti-Mills, ignoring the sociologist’s assertion that a “master task” for intellectuals should be: “To confront the new facts of history-making in our time, and their meaning for the problem of political responsibility.” Curtis does the opposite, but in a stylish and disorienting way which serves to conceal his propagandistic function.

    This is not to state that he does so intentionally; I am agnostic on that score. However, if Curtis suddenly abandoned his myopia toward the power elite, he would likely find that he was no longer welcome on the BBC and his work would not likely be reviewed favorably by the prestige media.

    CGYOMH and the “American Century”

    Given the systemic crises that Curtis explores in CGYOMH, he would have been wise to devote some of the film’s eight-hour run-time to the origins of the US-led world order whose present decrepitude he documents. During and after World War II, there were debates over what to do with America’s historically singular position of unrivaled dominance. Wall Street’s Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) wanted an “American Century,” i.e., hegemony over the international capitalist system. Daniel Ellsberg aptly terms this covert empire—empire that does not acknowledge and actively obscures (to the extent possible) its imperialism.[10] This global imperialist turn was opposed by some at the time, most famously Henry Wallace, FDR’s vice president. Opposing the “American Century” proposed by CFR man Henry Luce,” Wallace instead called for a “Century of the Common Man” in which,

    No nation will have the God-given right to exploit other nations. Older nations will have the privilege to help younger nations get started on the path to industrialization, but there must be neither military nor economic imperialism. The methods of the 19th century will not work in the people’s century which is now about to begin.[11]

    Wallace’s defeat may have been inevitable. The forces driving US imperialism conspired against him at the 1944 Democratic convention. As Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick describe in The Untold History of the United States, he was dropped from the Democratic ticket despite being the second most popular US politician at the time—behind only Franklin Roosevelt himself. Progressive internationalism was abandoned. Instead, the only viable foreign policy positions were confined to “containment” or “rollback”—both products of men in the service of Establishment scion Dean Acheson—respectively, George Kennan[12] and Paul Nitze.[13]

    The CIA was created with communism as its ostensible foil. Behind the scenes, the Agency was created largely at the behest of Wall Street forces.[14] Though the US did preside over a process postwar “decolonization,” the Cold War served as cover for neocolonialism—the preservation of colonial economic relationships without formal colonization. By 2021, it should be obvious that—because of the historical continuity it represents—the Cold War offered a massive structural pretext for neocolonialism. How much difference is there between early 20th century US imperialism, the Cold War, and the post-Cold War era? Think of the earliest so-called “banana republics,” the Cold War CIA Operation PBSUCCESS which overthrew Guatemalan democracy at the behest of United Fruit, the 1964 coup in Brazil, or the 21st century “lawfare” coups in Brazil which took Dilma Rousseff and Lula de Silva out of politics. It is one of the straighter lines that can be found in history and social science.

    While discussing many episodes involving covert operations and foreign policy debacles, Curtis largely ignores the driving, discernable corporate interests. These interests animated the CIA at its inception and throughout its existence. The pithy truism that “the CIA is capitalism’s invisible army” goes unacknowledged—the implication being that these criminogenic organizations are just more examples of the misadventures of misguided technocrats possessed of troublesome ideas.

    Monetary Myopia

    On money and finance, CGYOMH is at its obscurantist worst. Curtis acknowledges that in 1971 Nixon ended Bretton Woods, though he doesn’t name it. CGYOMH does explain that the period of fixed exchange rates was ended. Curtis also doesn’t adequately explain the crucial fact that while the soft gold standard of Bretton Woods was abandoned, the dollar was not. Once this post-Bretton Woods regime was consolidated, it allowed the US to run historically unprecedented balance-of-payments deficits without suffering inflation. The dollar and the US Treasury Bill replaced the role formerly played by gold, but without the limitations imposed by the scarcity of Gold. This “gave the US the Rumpelstiltskinian power to create credit that the rest of the world would have to treat as being ‘as good as gold.’”[15] It is hard to overstate the extent to which the establishment of this regime represented both the use and acquisition of enormous structural power for the US.

    It was Vietnam War spending that created the deficits that killed Bretton Woods.[16] In CGYOMH, Curtis states flatly that Vietnam caused the economic problems and the inflation of the 1970’s. However, chronological correlation does not imply causation. The Vietnam era was an economic boom period for the US. There was indeed a dollar glut in foreign banks which necessitated systemic adjustment, but this could have been addressed in different ways. Instead, it was resolved by closing the gold window and later by way of the “oil shocks.” The explosion in the price of oil did cause some economic problems for the US public. But here again, Curtis errs on the side of obfuscating conspiratorial elite malfeasance. He states that in 1973, Middle Eastern leaders “decided to use oil as a weapon…to force America to stop supporting Israel.” But as Gowan[17] and Varoufakis[18] point out, this explanation was essentially a cover story. The explanation Curtis puts forward,

    …runs counter to logic and evidence. For if the Nixon administration had truly opposed the oil price hikes, how are we to explain the fact that its closest allies, the Shah of Iran, President Suharto of Indonesia and the Venezuelan government, not only backed the increases but led the campaign to bring them about? How are we to account for the administration’s scuttling of the Tehran negotiations between the oil companies and OPEC just before an agreement was reached that would have depressed oil prices?[19]

    This is further corroborated by the former Saudi oil minister, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, who told The Guardian that,

    I am 100 per cent sure that the Americans were behind the increase in the price of oil. The oil companies were in real trouble at that time; they had borrowed a lot of money and they needed a high oil price to save them.[20]

    The Shah of Iran—a CIA-installed dictator—told Yamani, “Why are you against the increase in the price of oil? That is what they want? Ask Henry Kissinger—he is the one who wants a higher price.”[21] In addition, secret Saudi agreements with the Nixon administration established that the kingdom would use oil revenues to buy US Treasury bills at special auctions,[22] and that Saudis would only sell oil in US dollars.[23]

    The final gambit to cement the post-Bretton Woods regime was the massive increase in interest rates. Bowing to David Rockefeller’s advice, Jimmy Carter tapped Paul Volcker to chair the Federal Reserve. Volcker then drastically raised interest rates. Though this was harmful to much of the US public, it served to stabilize the global financial system in such a way as to secure for the US the most “exorbitant privilege” in world history—ownership of the global reserve currency backed by nothing.

    The takeaway here is that Curtis is wrong on a crucial matter when he states in the third episode of CGYOMH that Nixon created a new global monetary system “by accident” and that the OPEC nations and Western bankers had themselves created an economic system beyond the control of politicians. In fact, the US government actually had enormous control over the monetary system, as well as the historically unprecedented ability to run massive to budget deficits to address any priority or social problem. This enormous economic power has studiously not been utilized for the benefit of most Americans. Through massive obfuscation of the true nature of American structural power over the global economy, the US public has been kept largely ignorant of the democratic state’s abdication of controlling authority over the domestic and international monetary system. This can be described as a central manifestation of American antisocialism—the prevailing US tendency to crush democratic political forces which would subordinate capital to human society rather than vice versa e.g. Wallace, and Bernie Sanders.

    In 1978, Paul Volcker—one of the first officials to call for the abandonment of Bretton-Woods—gave a speech admitting that, faced with collapse of Bretton Woods, the US privileged the retention of “freedom of action for national policy” over the creation “of a stable international system.” This speech was delivered shortly before Volcker’s appointment by Jimmy Carter to chair the Federal Reserve. In this same speech, Volcker stated that “controlled disintegration in the world economy is a legitimate objective for the 1980’s.”[xxiv] How did this play out? The enormous volume of petrodollars that flowed into US banks allowed for massive loans to the formerly colonized nations of the Global South. By the mid-1970’s, these nations were extremely vulnerable to any increase in interest rates. The massive Volcker interest rate hike led to the Third World debt crisis.[25] Writes Varafoukis,

    The IMF happily offered to lend money to governments for the purposes of repaying the Western Banks, but at an exorbitant price: the dismantling of much of their public sector, the shrinking of the newly founded state institutions, and the wholesale transfer of valuable public assets to Western companies. [The] crisis was the colonized world’s second historic disaster…from which most Third World countries have never quite recovered. [It all] proved more effective in destroying the enemies of US foreign policy around the globe than any military operation the US could ever mount.[26]

    The consolidation of this monetary regime was manifest in the so-called “Washington Consensus.” It was in this context that China entered as a major actor in the world economy. Here again, Curtis errs in such a way as to obscure Western imperialism and elite perfidy while conveniently depicting the West’s adversaries in a harsh light. In the fifth episode of CGYOMH, Curtis addresses the Asia crisis of 1997 and 1998. He discusses how a speculative bubble burst, resulting in capital flight and severe economic downturns for the effected countries. He states that the IMF tried to help, but (surprise!) their prescriptions just made things worse. Curtis even shows Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad denouncing the Western powers behind the corruption of global financial markets.

    However, the film fails to mention that Malaysia weathered this crisis remarkably well by doing the exact opposite of what the US-dominated IMF prescribed: the country enacted stringent capital controls to prevent capital flight that would have destroyed the country’s currency and thus its economy. Since this goes unmentioned, there is no need to explore the probability that these misguided IMF measures actually enrich Western economic interests through the impoverishment of other countries—by design.

    The Chinese Culprits

    After this myopic and obscurantist discussion of the Asia crisis, Curtis turns to his favorite bête noire, China. As Curtis describes it, Jiang Zemin—apparently a unitary actor with sole command over the Chinese state—decided that China would recycle its dollar surpluses into US treasury bills in order to keep its currency weak. This boosted China’s exports and strengthened the US dollar. China’s policy also allowed the US to keep interest rates low, flooding the US with cheap credit which would allow US citizens to buy even more goods produced by the scheming Chinese. This allows Curtis to essentially blame China for the bubble economy that emerged in the US, leading the poor Americans into “a protective dream world that was increasingly detached from the reality outside.” But as Michel Hudson often speaks and writes about, and as is delineated above, the system was designed to make surplus countries do exactly what the Chinese were doing: recycle dollars into US treasuries.[27] Cue Curtis’ nutty footage of a confused-looking George W. Bush walking around in a blue Zhongshan suit.

    If surplus countries like China do not invest in US treasuries, their currency will rise in value and damage their export economies. This demonstrates the remarkable fact that the US is able to dominate the global economy through its position as the biggest debtor in human history. Furthermore, for all the “free trade” mythology about the US, the country has refused to allow the Chinese to invest those dollars in key US companies. For example, the US government quashed a Chinese bid to acquire the oil company, Unocal, for $18.4 billion.[28]

    It is absurd for Curtis to suggest that Chinese machinations are responsible for the various speculative bubbles in the US economy. And it is risible to imply that the dystopian George W. Bush years were also somehow related to devious Chinese plots. In fact, China is well aware that by helping finance America’s massive military budget, the country is financing its own military encirclement. The Chinese are increasingly looking for ways to escape the dollar system without destabilizing their economy. The mandarins of US imperialism are acutely aware of this and have explicitly called for making sure that China cannot do any such thing. The US/NATO imperial brain trust known as the Atlantic Council recently issued a manifesto entitled “The Longer Telegram.” This is a straight steal from George Kennan’s 1946 Long Telegram, which explained the policy of containment toward the USSR. This time the warning is about China’s ambition to “undermine US dominance of the global financial system and the status of the US dollar as the global reserve currency.” The paper called for policymakers to “protect the global status of the US dollar.”[29]

    In 2003, US President George W. Bush—or Xiao Bushi (Little Bush), as the Chinese call him—launched the Iraq War. US leaders, as Curtis would have it, were presumably influenced in part by the dream-like state that China had contrived to addle the usually sensible and peaceful Americans. Curtis notes that while Vietnam caused inflation and political unrest, the Iraq War produced no such effects. Why? China, of course. With their nefarious purchasing of US Treasuries, CGYOMH implies, the Chinese have forestalled and/or sabotaged the political reckoning that liberal democracy is designed to produce.

    As for the lack of political unrest caused by Iraq—which really is not true, but let us grant it for the sake of argument—a responsible commentator might want to mention that unlike the Vietnam era, there were no Americans drafted to fight in Iraq. Additionally, the US waged the Vietnam War as the hegemon of the Bretton Woods system. Due to that system’s gold peg, the astronomical war spending did impact the US economy. With historic high-handedness and imperial hubris, the US defaulted on its obligations by unilaterally discarding Bretton Woods. Said Secretary Treasury John Connolly at the time (yes, that John Connolly), “It’s our currency, but it’s your problem.”[30]

    So while Curtis would like to blame China for US irresponsibility, the obvious fact is that it wasn’t China, but the post-Bretton Woods petrodollar/US Treasury-bill standard[31] that allowed the US to prosecute the Iraq War without experiencing the disastrous economic consequences that nations historically suffer after launching expensive military adventures. It was this same dynamic that allowed Reagan to slash taxes for the rich while exploding the military budget. This is why Dick Cheney famously said, “Deficits don’t matter.” He was largely correct, but this obviously belies the GOP/neoliberal Democrat austerity consensus, so it went substantively unexplored by the press.

    The Sub-Prime Crisis, Adam Curtis-Style

    As we should expect by the final episode of CGYOMY, Curtis does not handle the sub-prime crash very well either. Those foolish bankers and technocrats thought their data modelling and algorithms could effectively manage all risk. On the ground, this led to massive amounts of unrepayable loans being made to poor people who couldn’t pay it back. While Curtis does reveal the scandalous fact that the massive bank losses were transferred to the public domain, he does not reveal to his audience that the government could have bailed out homeowners for a fraction of the cost of bailing out the fraudulent banks. Writes Michael Hudson:

    You hear no talk from Mr. Paulson or Mr. Bernanke about bailing out homeowners by writing down their debts to match their ability to pay. This is what economies have done from time immemorial. Instead, the Republicans—along with their allied Wall Street Democrats—have chosen to bail out investors in junk mortgages presently far exceeding the debtor’s ability to pay, and far in excess of the current (or reasonable) market price. The Treasury and Fed have opted to keep fictitious capital claims alive, forgetting the living debtors saddled with exploding adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) and toxic “negative amortization” mortgages that keep adding on the interest (and penalties) to the existing above-market balance.[32]

    The result of the sub-prime bailouts was a massive upward shift of wealth and millions of evictions across the US. JP Morgan reportedly said that in an economic downturn, capital “return[s] to its rightful owners.” Firms like Blackstone benefitted from the American state’s largesse toward finance and the penury of former homeowners by buying up massive amounts of foreclosed properties. In 2020, Fortune reported that Blackstone had become “the world’s biggest corporate landlord,” with control of property worth a collective $325 billion.[33]

    Given these outcomes, it begs the question as to whether or not those at the pinnacle of wealth and power really would consider the affair to be a terrible mistake. While the crisis was devastating for the US public, high finance benefitted enormously. Banks made vast profits through control fraud as the bubble expanded. After all, loans created essentially out of thin air are what banks “sell.” Huge bonuses were paid on the basis of fraudulent lending practices. While the public may be ignorant of the structural power bequeathed by the Petrodollar/US T-Bill Standard, the people who run the Federal Reserve, the US Treasury, and the Too-Big-to-Fail/Jail banks are most certainly aware. The last scene of the film Margin Call neatly illustrates this protective scheme as Jeremy Irons says the crash will not hurt his company that much since the federal government will bail them out, which, in large part, they did.

    The opacity of the higher circles means that we are never likely to know the extent to which the subprime crisis, subsequent bailouts, and failure to prosecute the fraudsters collectively represent something of a rolling deep state coup by a financial Power Elite. Suffice it to say that we should all be so lucky as to spectacularly “fail” in such a way as to effect an historically monumental transfer of wealth to ourselves.

    The Deep State Financial Elephants in the Room

    If Curtis wanted to honestly report on big money’s takeover of politics and society, he could tell us about Blackstone, or more importantly, the “Big Three” capital firms—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street. As Paul Jay reported,

    Financialization of the economy produced two shadow banks that tower over the rest of the corporate world. Blackrock and Vanguard with other smaller money management firms, control 90% of the S&P 500 public companies, including fossil fuel companies, arms manufacturers and major U.S. media outlets that own ‘mainstream’ news. The top three financial services firms manage 15 trillion dollars of assets. That’s more than China’s 2019 GDP. Blackrock is the largest with 7.4 trillion, followed by Vanguard at 5.3 trillion and State Street Global Advisors at 2.5 trillion.[34]

    This massive concentration of politico-economic power is another crucial aspect that Curtis obscures. The hegemony of organized money over society did not arise by accident. It involved a series of coups d’etat profonde, or strokes of the deep state. In my dissertation, I defined the deep state as,

    …the various institutions that collectively exercise undemocratic power over state and society. Pluralistic to varying degrees, the deep state is an outgrowth of the overworld of private wealth. It includes most notably the institutions that advance overworld interests through the nexuses connecting the overworld, the underworld, and the national security organizations that mediate between them.[35]

    I would add that deep state can also refer to what is often called “the Establishment,” i.e., those parties whose political dominance has “been institutionalized via the cooptation or subversion of state, civil society, and liberal institutions. In this broadest sense, elements of organized religion, the educational system, the corporate media (and much of the ‘independent’ media) can be considered part of the deep state.”[36]

    By putting forward conventional or benign, idiosyncratic explanations of historical events—and by failing to interrogate deep political intrigues—Curtis lets culpable elite actors and institutions off the hook. This is beguiling and ultimately disempowering. The same can be said for his various critiques of technocrats and their “misguided” notions—wrongheaded ideas whose invariable usefulness to the politico-economic elite is typically obscured or regarded as coincidental. And of course, this criticism also applies to his oft-conveyed lament that the solipsistic foolishness of random persons is somehow to blame for the prevailing political dystopia we are living through. Given what has changed in US society since World War II, it is more accurate to blame the elites, and their American anti socialism, for the purposeful incremental neutering of American democracy.

    In Part 2, Aaron Good will explore how Curtis’ financial obscurantism is of a piece with his take on “conspiracy theories” and the parapolitical practices of America’s covert empire.

    see Deep Fake Politics (Part 2): The Prankster, the Prosecutor, and the Para-political

    see Deep Fake Politics (Part 3): Empire and the Criminalization of the State


    [1] Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1993), p. 7.

    [2] Adam Curtis and Chris Darke, “Interview: Adam Curtis,” Film Comment, July 17, 2012.

    [3] Curtis and Darke, “Interview: Adam Curtis.”

    [4] C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1956), p. 21.

    [5] Mills, The Power Elite, p. 27.

    [6] Mills, The Power Elite, p. 27.

    [7] Mills, The Power Elite, p. 361.

    [8] Susan Strange, States and Markets, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Continuum, 1994).

    [9] Aaron Good, “American Exception: Hegemony and the Dissimulation of the State,” Administration and Society 50, no. 1 (2018): p. 10.

    [10] Daniel Ellsberg, Conversation with author’s Intensive Peace Studies of the American Century class, February 2, 2021.

    [11] Wallace, Henry A. “The Century of the Common Man.” American Rhetoric. New York, NY, May 8, 1942.

    [12] Bruce Cumings, “‘Revising Postrevisionism,’ or, The Poverty of Theory in Diplomatic History,” Diplomatic History 17, no. 4 (October 1993): p. 564.

    [13]NSC-68, 1950,” U.S. Department of State – Archive (Washington D.C., January 20, 2009).

    [14] Good, “American Exception: Hegemony and the Dissimulation of the State,” p. 15.

    [15] Aaron Good, “American Exception: Hegemony and the Tripartite State” (Temple University, 2020), p. 165.

    [16] Michael Hudson, Super Imperialism: The Origin and Fundamentals of US Dominance (Sterling, VA: Pluto Press, 2003), pp. 306–308.

    [17] Peter Gowan, The Global Gamble: Washington’s Faustian Bid for World Dominance (London, England: Verso, 1999), pp. 20–21.

    [18] Yanis Varoufakis, The Global Minotaur: America, Europe and the Future of the Global Economy, 2nd ed. (London, England: Zed Books, 2015).

    [19] Varoufakis, The Global Minotaur: America, Europe and the Future of the Global Economy, p. 97.

    [20] The Observer, “Saudi Dove in the Oil Slick,” The Guardian, January 13, 2001.

    [21] The Observer, “Saudi Dove in the Oil Slick,” The Guardian, January 13, 2001.

    [22] David E. Spiro, The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1999), p. 107.

    [23] Spiro, The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets, 124.

    [24] Varoufakis, The Global Minotaur: America, Europe and the Future of the Global Economy, p. 100.

    [25] Varoufakis, The Global Minotaur: America, Europe and the Future of the Global Economy, p. 107.

    [26] Varoufakis, The Global Minotaur: America, Europe and the Future of the Global Economy, p. 108.

    [27] Michael Hudson, J Is for Junk Economics: A Guide to Reality in an Age of Deception (Glashütte, Germany: ISLET-Verlag, 2017), p. 79.

    [28] AP, “China’s CNOOC Drops Bid for Unocal,” NBC News, August 2, 2005.

    [29] Anonymous, “The Longer Telegram: Toward A New American China Strategy,” Atlantic Council Strategy Papers (Washington D.C., 2021).

    [30] Kevin Hebner, “The Dollar Is Our Currency, but It’s Your Problem,” IPE, October 2007.

    [31] Good, “American Exception: Hegemony and the Dissimulation of the State,” p. 12.

    [32] Michael Hudson, “The Paulson-Bernanke Bank Bailout Plan,” Counterpunch, September 22, 2008.

    [33] Shawn Tully, “How Blackstone Became the World’s Biggest Corporate Landlord,” Fortune, February 17, 2020.

    [34] Paul Jay, “Three Investment Banks Control More Wealth Than GDP of China – and Threaten Our Existence,” January 22, 2020.

    [35] Good, “American Exception: Hegemony and the Tripartite State,” p. 277.

    [36] Good, “American Exception: Hegemony and the Tripartite State,” p. 288.

  • Vincent Bugliosi, Tom O’Neill, Quentin Tarantino, and Tate/LaBianca, Part 2

    Vincent Bugliosi, Tom O’Neill, Quentin Tarantino, and Tate/LaBianca, Part 2


    Part 2

    A Review of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

    Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is the wrong film at the right time. As noted in Part 1 of this discussion, the highly questionable thesis of the Vincent Bugliosi/Curt Gentry massive bestseller Helter Skelter is finally being seriously questioned. Therefore, it would have been a good time to review the subject matter for a more truthful rendition of those infamous events. Quentin Tarantino is not the guy to do it. The man who turned the Third Reich into a comic book and American slavery into a Spaghetti Western was not going to make any real attempt to confront the Tate/LaBianca case.

    In fact, the current film spends considerably more time on its two major characters’ travails in Hollywood. Those two characters are Rick Dalton, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, and Cliff Booth, played by Brad Pitt. Dalton is a TV actor trying to transition to films. Booth is his stunt man/friend. They are loosely modeled on Burt Reynolds and his pal, stunt-man-turned-director Hal Needham. Why a director/writer would want to configure Tate/LaBianca around two men who, when they finally made it big in movies, decided to give us stuff like The Cannonball Run, Smokey and the Bandit and Stroker Ace, eludes this reviewer. But since Tarantino handed Needham a Governor’s Ball Oscar in 2012, he apparently thinks that somehow Needham’s oeuvre should be given further homage.

    The film begins in February of 1969 with a TV preview of Dalton’s Western series, Bounty Law. That fictional series is modeled on Steve McQueen’s Wanted Dead or Alive. We then watch an interview with Dalton and Booth to promote the series. The following credit sequence cuts between the two main characters and Sharon Tate arriving at LAX. Although Dalton lives next door to Tate and her husband Roman Polanski, and Booth spends a lot of time at Dalton’s, there is no direct relationship between them until the very last scene.

    Al Pacino plays Dalton’s producer/manager. At the beginning of the film he tells Dalton that his career has plateaued with television. Between the series he does and guest shots on other televisions series he will never break through. He advises him to go to Italy to make features. (The film uses the name of the Italian director who hired Reynolds to do Navajo Joe, which closely resembles the film title used here, Nebraska Jim.)

    The locations are meant to recall Burbank, the home of a few studios. And this is how the Manson Clan is introduced. Pitt/Booth sees some of the them standing on corners trying to hitch rides. After dropping off Dalton from work, Booth jumps in his VW Karmann Ghia and drives home. Tarantino has always been obsessed with people driving in cars with the top down—just ask Uma Thurman. He somehow thinks it is emblematic of film art to show the driver’s hair being blown by the wind as he or she drives fast through traffic. Booth/Pitt lives in a cheap trailer with his pit bull dog right next to the Van Nuys drive-in. As we shall see, the dog will be important to the resolution of the film.

    This drive across town by Booth is then echoed by Polanski and his wife Sharon Tate as they go to a party at the Playboy Club. As they walk in, they are greeted by celebrities like Michelle Phillips, Cass Elliot, Steve McQueen and McQueen’s hair stylist Jay Sebring. This shows that the director understands some of the true underpinnings of the real story, for in addition to Sebring being a victim in the Tate murder, McQueen and Elliot were involved in the drug dealings around the Polanski home. (See Part 1)

    The story is filled with what former film critic John Barbour has characterized as aimless and pointless scenes, like Pitt/Booth fixing his friend’s TV antenna and this being crosscut with Polanski and Tate waking up the morning after the Playboy party. There is another scene between Pitt and Bruce Lee from his Green Hornet days getting in a sparring contest. (I will deal more with this incident later.) There is then a very long sequence with Dalton guest-starring in a segment from a real western series, Lancer. During this part of the film, there is also a hint that Booth murdered his wife on board a boat. (Is this supposed to remind us of the death of Natalie Wood?)

    The only time we see Charles Manson is in a scene where he goes up to the Polanski home and finds out his acquaintance, music producer Terry Melcher, does not live there anymore. Jay Sebring tells him that. Manson then walks off never to be seen again. It was apparently more important to show us Tate driving to a bookstore to pick up a copy of Thomas Hardy’s Tess of the D’Urbervilles and then walking into a nearby theater to watch herself in the (bad) movie The Wrecking Crew. We know the character enjoyed this since Tarantino has actress Margot Robbie take off her shoes and put her bare feet on the seat in front of her. (Her feet looked kind of dirty to me. The sign of a true auteur.)

    Before the ending of the film, the closest association between any of the main characters and the Manson Clan comes when Pitt picks up one of the girls on a street corner and drives her to Spahn ranch in Chatsworth. This was where Manson was living with the permission of the owner George Spahn. Spahn sometimes rented out his property for filming Western movies. Pitt insists on seeing Spahn against the approval of just about all of the Manson followers, who do not want him there. Tarantino directs him going into Spahn’s room with the weighted threat of some kind of slasher film. But before that, he has about 14 of the Clan watch him as he enters the cabin Spahn is in. This included three males. After doing nothing but talking to Spahn, Pitt leaves and walks to his car. The one remaining male has stuck a knife into the left front tire. Pitt then beats him up and makes him fix the tire. Like many scenes in the film, this made little sense to me. Besides all the pretention of the music and dark lighting before the Spahn meeting, why would the Clan have given the guy a flat tire if they wanted him gone ASAP? From the very cold greeting he received, he would have already gotten the message.

    The film then flashes forward to August of 1969 and Dalton’s return from Italian film making. For no real reason, Kurt Russell, who plays a stunt supervisor in the film, now narrates it a bit. (Why him? Shouldn’t it be Pacino, who sent him to Italy?) The actor and stunt man have made four films abroad and Dalton is now married to an Italian wife. After dropping off the spouse, the two friends go out drinking and Dalton tells Booth that they will probably now have to split up. (Again, I found this inexplicable. Which was about par for the course with this film.) There are other pointless scenes in this part of the story: for instance, Tate being visited by her actress friend, Joanna Pettet, and Lee teaching Sebring martial arts. The (overdue) ending comes with Sharon Tate going out with her friends: Sebring, Abigail Folger and her boyfriend Voytek Frykowksi. This is crosscut with Booth and Dalton getting bombed at a bar. Both parties go home, and as the reader may recall, they are neighbors.

    The climax comes with Tex Watson driving a junky car up Cielo Drive since Manson has told him and his three cohorts to kill the residents at Terry Melcher’s former house. But Dalton hears the car idling on the street and comes out to yell at the driver and passengers since they are making too much noise. They drive back down the road and one of the girls—who is inexplicably Asian—delivers an unbelievable monologue from the back seat of the car. I had to see the film twice to understand this scene, since it is the nexus for what follows. She has recognized Dalton as a TV star who usually plays law enforcement figures. And he usually ends up shooting someone. She says something like, “forget what we were told to do and instead give back some of the violence our culture has taught us on those who presented it.”

    The idea that anyone in such a motley crew as Manson’s would ever utter such a thing in this situation is so stupid as to be beneath any comment. It’s clearly a cheap plot device. The Manson attackers now directly meet up with the protagonists inside Dalton’s house. Dalton has gone out on his patio pool as they enter the home. Pitt is inside and recognizes them from his visit to Spahn ranch. Tex Watson pulls a gun while the girls have knives. Dalton’s Italian wife is woken up and dragged into the living room. How do the unarmed good guys win? It’s out of an R-rated Lassie movie. Pitt’s dog attacks Watson’s arm and gets the gun loose. The dog then attacks Watson’s crotch and begins biting on it. (I saw the movie twice and took copious notes, so I am not making this up.) When Pitt gets stabbed in the hip, he goes bonkers and starts slamming the Caucasian woman’s head into anything on the wall that Tarantino can think of, such as the phone and the top of the fireplace, just for starters. The Asian girl has also been smacked and she starts screaming hysterically and waving her arms and the knife. She actually smashes through the glass doors onto the pool deck and into the water. She is till screaming and waving as the pool gets bloody. Dalton goes to his tool shed and—again I am not making this up—he brings back a flame thrower and incinerates her. (This had been planted earlier as a prop Dalton used in a war film to incinerate some Nazis. Tarantino evidently was doing an homage to himself—Inglourious Basterds.) We are then treated to some nice medium close ups of her charred body in the water as this scene—mercifully—comes to an end.

    At the very end, after the cops have left and Booth/Pitt is taken to the hospital, Jay Sebring comes over and asks what happened. (We are supposed to believe that somehow a drunken Dalton heard the car idling outside his house, but no one heard the utter and complete mayhem going on during this murder and destruction scene.) Dalton talks to Tate through the intercom and she invites him in for a drink. The end.

    As I have tried to point out, in the form of a story, the differing strands do not connect, let alone comment on each other. They really don’t even support each other in a structural way. There are examples of film narrative structure where writers do handle disparate strands of a story with skill and adroitness, and as a result, the ending packs a punch. For instance, in the film Network, Paddy Chayefsky kept the nine pins of his plot spinning throughout the entire two hours. And what came before in the film was at least some justification for a rather wild ending. That does not happen here. As I said, this film has an added-on ending in which one can see the writer working through his characters, almost using them as puppets for his preordained finale. This is why there is no emotional payoff at the end.

    I would have liked to say that somehow this pointless story is redeemed by some skillful filmmaking. Nope. Tarantino is simply not a gifted director. He has no eye for striking compositions, little sense of how to stage violence with any kind of sensibility or poetry, and there is not one performance in the film that merits any real comment. But one cannot really blame the actors for that, since there is so little characterization for them to work with. That even includes a proven performer like Pacino. Brad Pitt gets by on his personal charm. As Sharon Tate, Margot Robbie strikes a series of poses. She might as well have been on a modeling shoot. DiCaprio has a couple of scenes where he has to register some pathos and self-disgust. He does it adequately. And that is it for the acting.

    The violence in the film is pretty much of the Kill Bill variety—a previous Tarantino pastiche. I couldn’t sit through Part One, let alone Part Two. This is kind of ironic, considering Polanski is a character in the film. Because Polanski is famous for memorable and telling treatment of violence in his films. Who can forget the scene in his film Chinatown where, in an acting role, he slit Jack Nicholson’s nose? Or the gripping final fight scene in Macbeth? —to name just two instances. Scenes like those—not to mention what men like Kurosawa and Peckinpah have done—justify the use of violence in films. With Tarantino it’s pretty much just a bunch of bloody junk being thrown at us. In that regard, he makes Martin Scorsese look imaginative and artistic.

    There is something else I have to mention about this film which others have pretty much ignored. I don’t see how anyone cannot detect its anti-Asian bias. Many have pointed out the scene in which Bruce Lee (played by Mike Moh) boasts of his being able to defeat Cassius Clay. The very fact that Tarantino has Lee call the heavyweight champion Clay in 1969—four years after he changed his name to Ali—shows that he wants to demean him. But further, the justification for the scene is false. There is also a scene from the Tate movie The Wrecking Crew where we see her defeat Nancy Kwan in a fight. And then there is the incineration of the Asian girl by flame thrower at the end. Evidently, the director thinks that Asians have gotten too much praise and respect in our society. He wanted to take them down a peg.

    To me, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is simply an unrewarding mess. In every way. It surprises me that more people are not calling it out as such. In the end this reminds me of Dwight Macdonald’s review of the 1966 British film, Morgan! Karel Reisz’ film was popularly praised in certain quarters at the time of its release. Macdonald didn’t see it that way. He asked some pertinent questions. If the film was a comedy, he did not find it funny. If it was supposed to be a drama, or to wring pathos, he was unmoved. If the film was a satire, where was the edge to it? But he was asked, you aren’t taking it seriously are you? It was really a fantasy. Not really. Because fantasies that are really well done do take themselves seriously. They follow their own set of rules. And by showing that kind of discipline, there is a payoff at the end. For example: who can forget the memorably done ending of Warren Beatty’s Heaven Can Wait?

    As Macdonald said in his review, an “in” thing to do back in the 18th century was to visit a mental asylum; in 1966, one goes instead to Reisz’ film. Well, in 2019, we go to this film. And somehow, through an industry-wide PR plot, no one is supposed to say that they got snookered. The idea that Quentin Tarantino is some kind of genuine talent is due to the utter collapse of American film criticism. The truth is the man simply has nothing to say, in both the narrowest and widest sense of that phrase.

    In a real sense, we are all still paying for Jane Hamsher taking out that option from Tarantino while he was a clerk in a Manhattan Beach video store back in the nineties. The intellectual bankruptcy of the man is he did not even understand how Oliver Stone, in Natural Born Killers, had turned his sow’s ear of a script into a silk purse. Hollywood is a bereft place today. It consists of Marvel and DC comics and the likes of Tarantino and Jordan Peele. To see Peele’s Us and then this film is to be really disheartened about the state of the American movie business. The only good thing about this picture may be that Tarantino has said he is only going to make one more.

    Let us all try and hold him to that promise.


    Go to Part 1

  • Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg  Mythologize the Washington Post

    Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg Mythologize the Washington Post


    the paper


    For Jim’s review, published at Consortium News, see:  “The Post and the Pentagon Papers“.


    A few weeks ago Ken Burns and Lynn Novick delivered a hugely disappointing ten-part documentary entitled The Vietnam War. Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg will now do the same for the famous Pentagon Papers case.

    Their film, entitled The Post, is not focused on Daniel Ellsberg. And it does not use his book Secrets as source material. Their film actually makes Ben Bradlee and Kate Graham the protagonists of the whole struggle to release the multi-volume, Defense Department study about how America got into, and stayed involved in the Vietnam War. It will therefore make Bradlee and Graham into some kind of hero and heroine of that hugely conflicting episode. To anyone who understands who Graham and Bradlee were, and the true story of what Ellsberg did, nothing could be further from the facts. To cite just one example: in Ellsberg’s 457 page book Secrets—which chronicles the entire affair in detail—there is exactly one glancing reference to Bradlee. There are none to Graham.

    That is because, when one understands what Ellsberg and his cohorts were up to, the Washington Post was, if not inconsequential to the affair, extraneous to Ellsberg’s strategy. Once Ellsberg made his decision to go public with the Robert McNamara commissioned Top Secret history, it was just a matter of how many newspapers would pick up the story after the New York Times initially published it. Ellsberg and his friends had made many copies of the secret history, since he anticipated that there might be legal action against the Times to stop publishing. He and his friends had arranged for many newspaper outlets to get them once the Times was enjoined by the Nixon White House with a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt publication. Which the Times was, after three days of stories based upon the documents.

    By the time the Supreme Court decided to strike down the TRO and allow publication, almost twenty newspapers throughout the country had printed sections of the Pentagon Papers. The White House had only named four of them in their legal action: the Times, the Post, the Boston Globe and  the St. Louis Post Dispatch. But further, Senator Mike Gravel had read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record on the floor of the Senate. And he then handed out copies to reporters who were there at the time. He then arranged for no other senator to be there so he could move to have the entire set committed to the record without objection. This was on the day the Supreme Court decision was delivered. What Gravel did—committing the documents into the Senate record— made the decision pretty much irrelevant. Gravel agreed to do this after three other senators—including George McGovern—and one congressman had refused to. Then Beacon Press, which came under great duress, published that version of the Pentagon Papers in a four-volume set.

    There are some heroes in this story. For example, Ellsberg, Mike Gravel, and Ellsberg’s friend Anthony Russo, who helped him copy the documents and who, like Ellsberg, risked going to jail for that act. There was also Judge Gerhard Gesell who, during two weeks of rapid, almost dizzying court hearings, ruled twice for disclosure. But Graham and Bradlee? Nothing in either of their careers merits this kind of aggrandizement. It could only happen in Tinsel Town. And in these days of MSM synergy, HBO has joined in with documentary specials on Spielberg and Bradlee.

    Below we link to a series of articles about Bradlee, Graham the Washington Post and Watergate. We do this so the reader will not be bamboozled by another Tom Hanks version of (ersatz) history.


    To counter the Hanks/Spielberg Mythology,  here is some real information on Bradlee, Graham and The Washington Post:

     

    Ben Bradlee


    Kate Graham


    Watergate


    Bob Woodward


  • Rules Don’t Apply

    Rules Don’t Apply


    For many years Warren Beatty had wanted to do a movie about Howard Hughes. According to various reports, he had dallied with the idea since the seventies. Because Beatty has produced and directed some distinguished films, most of us who heard about this project had some high expectations for it. An accomplished and intelligent Hollywood film-maker was going to take on a fascinating and complex American historical figure, about whom much mystery and fascination have existed. In fact, one could argue that Hughes was the most famous and controversial American billionaire before Donald Trump. Except he was much richer than Trump. To give one example: when Hughes Aircraft was auctioned off in 1985—about a decade after Hughes’s death—it sold for $5.2 billion.

    Trump, early in his career, actually thought of going into the movie business. He then optioned for real estate. Hughes actually did go into the movie business for about a twenty-year period. After that, he became a major real estate investor in the Las Vegas area. As Trump did in Atlantic City, Hughes purchased several hotel-casinos.

    CIA counterintel tsar
    James Angleton

    But in many ways, Hughes’ life and career is much more interesting, complex, and puzzling than Trump’s. In fact, the last part of Hughes’ life is so mysterious that, to this day—over forty years after his death—writers are still trying to figure out the last ten years of it. All one needs to know as to why the mystery exists is this little known fact: Although there is no evidence that Hughes actually met James Angleton, the legendary CIA counter-intelligence chief attended Hughes’ funeral.

    Robert Maheu in Las Vegas

    CIA agent Robert Maheu—who ran Hughes’ Nevada holdings for four years—once said about him that Hughes wanted to “set himself into an alliance with the CIA that would protect him from investigation by government agencies.” (Playboy, September , 1976, “The Puppet and the Puppetmasters”, by Laurence Gonzales and Larry DuBois) After Maheu was unceremoniously expelled from his position as Hughes’ manager in Nevada at the end of 1970, the CIA found a way to mitigate Hughes’ fear about government inquiries. They secretly contracted out with Hughes for something called Project Jennifer. This was a top secret operation that was budgeted at about $350 million. The idea was to build a huge salvage ship that would surface a sunken Russian submarine in the Pacific about 700 miles from Hawaii. At that time, it was one of the largest contracts for a single national security item the CIA had ever extended. This, of course, allowed the Agency to plant agents inside the company.

    But this was only a rather small part of the cross-pollination of Hughes companies with the CIA. On April 1, 1975, The Washington Post reported that “Hughes Aircraft had been mentioned as a potential hotbed of interrelationships with the CIA.” For the simple reason that “Hughes gravitated into areas that other people refused to go into or didn’t believe in.” (op. cit. DuBois and Gonzales) This allowed the CIA to negotiate with Hughes for many of their black budget items. Time magazine once reported that, in the last ten years of his life, the CIA had contracted out about six billion dollars worth of this kind of work to Hughes. This is why, as more than one investigator has noted, at times it was difficult to know where the Hughes empire ended and the CIA began.

    This problem did not just exist with Hughes Aircraft, but also with Hughes Tool Company, whose chief asset was an oil drill bit which cracked through rock in record time. This device was invented by Hughes’ father, but he refused to market it, preferring to patent and then lease it. It was a sensational success, both nationally and internationally. As one source revealed, the information garnered from these leases became an important part of the Hughes/CIA relationship because of the Agency’s interest in resource-recovery information. Other countries could not keep the true value of their petroleum resources secret anymore. (ibid)

    Bebe Rebozo with Nixon

    Even Hughes Medical Institute was not immune to this melding of interests. HMI was originally set up in 1953 in Florida with much fanfare. Hughes announced it would be a great research institute that would benefit all mankind. In reality, it was a tax dodge scheme. Much of the profits from Hughes Aircraft were funneled through HMI. Now Hughes would not have to pay taxes on them since HMI was designed as a tax exempt charity, with Hughes as the sole trustee. But by the late sixties, as Hughes became more eccentric, incapacitated, and cut off from the outside world, and as his interests became entwined with the Agency, there were reports that HMI became a CIA front. One Pentagon official told Time words to that effect. When, on instructions from Hughes, employee John Meier went on a visit to HMI in 1969, he learned the same thing from HMI president Ken Wright. He also learned that Wright was siphoning off money to Richard Nixon’s close friend Bebe Rebozo. (Lisa Pease, “Howard Hughes, John Meier, Don Nixon and the CIA”, Probe Magazine, January-February 1996) All these instances, and more, explain why Angleton was quite appreciative of the opportunities Hughes gave the Agency to extend its reach and power.  In fact, the role of Hughes with the Agency was joked about in the halls of Langley. There, they referred to Hughes as “The Stockholder”. (Jim Hougan, Spooks, p. 259)

    We should add one more notable point about this particular issue. Most commentators seem to agree that a central crossroads in Hughes’ life and career was a mysterious journey that he made to Boston in 1966. While in Boston, he stayed at the Ritz-Carlton. But he also visited a hospital whose physician in chief was George Thorn, a director of Hughes Medical Institute. (Howard Hughes: His Life and Madness, by Donald Bartlett and James Steele, p. 276) To this day, no one knows the purpose of this trip, why Hughes was in the hospital, or what was done to him there. But in addition to Thorn’s presence, the security for the Boston journey was arranged by CIA agent Robert Maheu. (ibid, p. 275) It was after this that Hughes made the decision to move his empire to Nevada, and he also went into a state of near hibernation. He moved into the top floor of the Desert Inn hotel and began to inject himself with large liquid doses of codeine and Valium.

    Hughes parade after his
    around-the-world flight (1938)

    In addition to all the above intrigue, Hughes was a movie producer and director for a period of about twenty years. After he lost interest in films, he still ran the RKO studio as a kind of absentee owner until the fifties, when he sold it. He was a record-breaking airplane pilot. In 1935, piloting a plane he himself commissioned, he easily smashed the prevailing air speed record. In 1936 and 1937, he set four consecutive records for transcontinental flight times. (Bartlett and Steele, pp. 82-87) In 1938 Hughes cut Charles Lindbergh’s flight time from New York to Paris in half. That same year, as part of the same flight, Hughes did the same with the late Wally Post’s round the world flight. (ibid, pp. 94-97) For that achievement Hughes and his four-man crew received a ticker tape parade down Broadway that rivaled Lindbergh’s.

    Donald Nixon’s diner

    Then there was Hughes’ relationship with Richard Nixon. The Internal Revenue Service recognized that Hughes had set up a tax scam with HMI, and refused to give the so-called medical center the necessary tax exemption. So Hughes did what he became famous for: he found a way to grease a politician’s palm. Except, in this case, it was the politician’s brother. Donald Nixon was having problems with a business enterprise called Nixonburgers—a combination fast food venture and shopping center. He was tendered a loan for over two hundred thousand dollars—well over a million today. The loan came from Hughes. It was extended in December of 1956, a month after the presidential election in which President Dwight Eisenhower and Vice-President Richard Nixon were re-elected. The loan was secured by a plot of land in Whittier, California—except the lot was worth, at most, about $50,000. Once the transaction was completed, Hughes headquarters in Hollywood notified the Vice-President all was in place for his brother Donald. (ibid, p. 204) That phone call was made in February of 1957. On March 1st, the IRS reversed its decision about Hughes Medical Center: the tax dodge scheme was now made legal.


    Actress Jean Peters
    Hughes & Noah Dietrich

    In the late fifties, Hughes began to struggle with his personal demons and galloping eccentricities. One of America’s richest and most powerful men called an old friend in Texas and told him he had ruined his life beyond repair. (ibid, p. 225) For instance, his marriage to actress Jean Peters in 1957 seems to have been a marriage of convenience. Hughes thought that his long time employee, Noah Dietrich, was plotting to have him declared incompetent so as to appoint a conservator over his affairs. Once married, this could not be done unless Peters approved it. (Beatty refers to this aspect more than once in his film) So, after 32 years, Hughes ended up firing Dietrich. There was reason for Hughes to fear such a coup. For example, when once facing a financial crisis with TWA, he lived and worked out of a screening room in West Hollywood for months. (ibid, p. 231) Unlike the depiction in the Martin Scorsese/Leonardo DiCaprio film, The Aviator, it appears it was at this time that he began to act bizarrely: walking around nude, spending hours in the bathroom, refusing to touch doorknobs etc. He also became addicted to drugs, e.g., painkillers like codeine and sedatives like Valium.

    The TWA Constellation,
    which Hughes requested
    Lockheed to build

    After losing control of TWA in 1965, Hughes decided to sell his stock in that company. That transaction, worth well over a half billion dollars, was one of the largest single stock sales in history up to that time. To lower his taxes, he then decided to move to Las Vegas. He promptly purchased both the Desert Inn and the Sands hotel casinos in 1967. Shortly after, he purchased the Castaways, the Landmark, and the Frontier hotels plus the Silver Slipper casino. He also bought a local TV station. As with his Nixon bribe, he then assigned a lawyer on his staff to run envelopes full of cash to scores of politicians in the state, both Democrats and Republicans. (ibid, p. 344) Hughes had designs on buying every major hotel-casino on the Las Vegas Strip, and then extending his empire north to Reno and Lake Tahoe. For all intents and purposes, he was going to own Nevada.

    The Desert Inn (1967)

    He made one mistake. He had moved too far too fast. He had Nevada pretty much sewn up; even Governor Paul Laxalt was in his corner. (ibid, p. 307) But after the TWA stock sale he was now billed as the richest man in America. And he now seemed intent on using that money to buy Las Vegas. When word leaked out he was going to buy the Stardust, the Justice Department stepped in: If that sale was announced they would file suit on anti-monopoly grounds. This was anathema to Hughes, because it would necessitate him appearing in court—which he would never do.

    Once his plans to take over the state were neutralized, Hughes’ life entered its final, almost surreal chapter. It is so strange, so fantastic, that it has generated a surfeit of controversy. In 1970, Jean Peters began divorce proceedings against Hughes. His behavior now began to get even more bizarre: for instance, he began to urinate into glass bottles and then cap them. (ibid, p. 426) Rumors of a palace coup based on declaring Hughes incompetent again began to swirl. This time they were spread by Maheu about Bill Gay, the head of Hughes operations in Los Angeles. Hughes now moved out of his penthouse at the Desert Inn and, for no apparent reason, relocated to Paradise Island in the Bahamas. He then moved from the Bahamas to Nicaragua, to London, to Vancouver, to Acapulco. Hughes reportedly passed away in Mexico and his body was flown to his hometown of Houston in April of 1976.

    With the size, scope and drama of this kind of life and career, the subject of Hughes has provoked dozens of essays, books, and even novels; for example, Harold Robbins’ pulp novel, The Carpetbaggers, which was later made into a movie. Much of this output was generated after he passed away. In addition to more than one full length biography, there have been books devoted solely to Hughes’ actions in Hollywood, or in Las Vegas. There have been four films I know of that have dealt with Hughes either as the major character or a supporting figure. Jonathan Demme’s 1980 film Melvin and Howard deals with the much questioned incident between Hughes and one Melvin Dummar, who claimed to have picked up Hughes on a highway in Nevada and driven him to the Desert Inn. Years later, a Hughes will was discovered in a Mormon church in Salt Lake City. It left Dummar $150 million. But in 1978, a jury declared that the will was invalid.

    To my knowledge, there have been two films made strictly about Hughes. In 1977 Tommy Lee Jones starred in a four-hour television mini-series entitled The Amazing Howard Hughes, which was based upon Noah Dietrich’s 1972 book. This is the only film I know that tries to trace the entire arc of Hughes’ adult life. In 2004, Martin Scorsese directed The Aviator starring Leonardo DiCaprio as Hughes. This film was a hundred million dollar super production that concentrated on Hughes in Hollywood. It made liberal use of dramatic license. Especially near the end where it portrayed the extreme symptoms of Hughes’ dementia about ten years earlier than they actually occurred—and impacting events they did not impact.

    The Hoax (2006)

    In 2006, Lasse Hallstrom directed Richard Gere as author Clifford Irving in The Hoax. That film depicts the episode where Irving attempts to pass off a manuscript he wrote about Hughes as being based upon hundreds of hours of private interviews he did with the reclusive billionaire. Irving sold the book to McGraw-Hill for over $700,000. The publisher did not go far enough in testing Irving or the manuscript, for Irving had never even met Hughes, let alone interviewed him. He had procured the manuscript of the Dietrich book and used that for much of his work. The caper later unraveled when it was discovered that Irving’s wife had deposited checks the publisher made out for Hughes into her personal bank account in Switzerland.

    Warren Beatty’s current Hughes film begins with a fictionalized version of the Irving affair. In reality, Hughes made his famous phone call contesting the book from the Bahamas to a Hollywood sound stage at Universal Studios. The much ballyhooed event was televised live. Hughes had issued a press release saying he had nothing to do with the Irving manuscript, which had generated significant publicity well before it was printed. Therefore seven reporters had gathered on stage, along with an eighth person who was a Hughes PR official. The reporters—like James Bacon and Vernon Scott—had all covered Hughes extensively. They were there to hear the man’s voice and ask him questions about his past that he should have been able to recall. And they would use these to see if it was really Hughes on the line and to measure his denials about the book. Considering the fact he was under the high dosages of Valium and codeine injected into his body via syringe, Hughes did fairly well. But there were still certain questions that he could not answer, and these left malingering questions about the book. Those were later dashed by the discovery of the spouse’s foreign bank deposits.

    Beatty’s film, entitled Rules Don’t Apply, fictionalizes the phone call. It treats it as a complete triumph. It subtitles the scene as taking place in 1964 and the call being from Acapulco. Also, the purported autobiography has now become a novel which claims Hughes has amnesia and cannot recall the last five years of his life. From here, the film flashes backwards in time to the very end of Hughes’ film career to pick up the main body of the story. Towards the end of that part of his life—and for a few years after—Hughes had a curious habit. He had made stars out of relative unknowns Jean Harlow and Jane Russell in, respectively, Hell’s Angels and The Outlaw. From these promotions Hughes apparently thought he had the Midas touch with young starlets. For even though he was not really active in the movie business, he would send employees of his, like Maheu, out as talent scouts to say, a Miss America contest. They would sign up one or two young ladies and Hughes would pay for certain dancing, singing, and drama classes.

    This was a very minor part of Hughes’ career, and most serious biographers deal with it in, perhaps, a page or so. But Beatty has made it the fulcrum of his film. After the movie’s prelude, with Hughes preparing for the live phone call about the ersatz book, he begins the film proper with a mother and daughter arriving in Los Angeles after being signed by a Hughes agent. The mother gets tired of waiting around and tells the daughter Hughes is playing around with her. The mother (played by Beatty’s wife Annette Bening) then leaves.

    Gail Ganley

    The girl that the story concentrates on is named Maria Mabrey. I assume, because of the use of alliteration in the name, that this character was based upon a woman named Gail Ganley. Ganley was a promising singer who was signed by Hughes, given acting classes, and told to keep her deal with Hughes a secret. She was promised $450 a week, plus expenses, and a future contract with Hughes. A driver transported her to her lessons each day in a Hughes auto. She was to keep the arrangement secret from everyone except those in her immediate family. And she was also to hold herself ready for a meeting with Hughes about her career. But as weeks dragged into months, none of what she was promised—the weekly salary, or the Hughes contract—actually materialized. When she complained about the delay she was put off by being told that Hughes was simply too busy at this time to deal with her—but he would in the future. She finally raised such a ruckus that she was told to drive to the Hughes headquarters at 7000 Romaine in Hollywood. She did and, as instructed, she honked her horn three times. On cue, a window flew open from the second floor. A man lowered an envelope with money in it by a string. This action was repeated a couple of times, but Ganley never got her contract. She later sued and received an out of court settlement. This weird ritual then ended. (Bartlett and Steele, pp. 243-44)

    The “Spruce Goose”

    The story progresses through a relationship developed between Mabrey (played by Lily Collins) and her driver, a character named Frank Forbes (Alden Ehrenreich).   Like Ganley, Mabrey begins to complain about the lack of progress with her career. Frank tells her about a plot of land he wants to develop with another Hughes employee named Levar Mathis (Matthew Broderick). Frank , who is engaged, begins to lose interest in his fiancée and gets entangled emotionally with Mabrey. Frank hopes to interest Hughes in his land deal. One night he drives Hughes to see the infamous Spruce Goose in Long Beach. On the way Hughes reminds him that his employees should not be having relationships with each other (hence the film’s title).

    Noah Dietrich (Martin Sheen) tells Hughes that he is beginning to act eccentrically—he is forgetful and repeating phrases. Hughes suspects Dietrich is plotting against him in order to have him declared incompetent. So he fires him and promotes Forbes. Mabrey then meets with Hughes, and in a rather odd scene, she starts crying and drinking, and he then proposes to her. The two get carried away and have sex. This happens while a Wall Street banker is calling Hughes, trying to see him about saving his investment in TWA.

    Mabrey gets pregnant and tells Hughes, who does not believe her and thinks she is out for his money. She and Frank have an argument about Hughes with her saying that her mother was right about him using people. Hughes then says he wants to travel the world, so the film actually does a flash-forward. We see Hughes with Frank and Levar in Nicaragua, and then London—where Hughes pilots a plane. (This really happened and is one of the very last times anyone in the outside world saw Hughes.) While in Nicaragua, Hughes is informed the U.S. government is suing him for $645 million. He is then advised by one of his attorneys that he must sell Hughes Tool Company—founded by his father—to pay for it.

    The film then returns to the phone call. Maria arrives with her son, who wanders around the suite and into Hughes’ bedroom. Hughes does not recognize him. On the phone he tells the reporters he has never met or seen the author of the book. Frank now decides to quit his job. He runs after Maria and the two, including Hughes’ son, leave the eccentric billionaire forever.


    As noted previously, Beatty had contemplated doing a film about Hughes for a long time. Because of that, plus the fact that Beatty has made some distinguished historical films, many had high hopes for this film. Consider his track record in this regard. In 1967 he produced and acted in Bonnie and Clyde, which is both a classic and a milestone in American film history. In 1981 he produced, co-wrote, starred in and directed Reds, a moving chronicle about the life of American journalist John Reed. In 1991, he co-produced and starred in Bugsy, an entertaining and well-acted film about gangster Benjamin Siegel and the creation of Las Vegas. He also starred in The Parallax View in 1974, a tense, taut thriller about the assassinations of the sixties.

    But in the last thirty years, Beatty has only appeared in six films prior to Rules Don’t Apply. And excepting Bugsy, those films have been, at best, non-distinctive—Dick Tracy, Love Affair, Bulworth; at worst, disasters—Ishtar, Town and Country. That record makes one wonder just how interested Beatty is, at age 79, in making films at this stage in his life. Because Rules Don’t Apply seems to me to be rather uninspired for a film that Beatty has contemplated doing for so long. One can excuse all of the rather excessive use of dramatic license if it adds up to something justifiable on its own. But the best one can say about the film’s meaning is that it shows us how two young people finally see that Howard Hughes is an irresponsible scoundrel who, for all his money, is someone they would be better off without. Which is the same message one can get from, say, the film of The Devil Wears Prada.

    As a film, the best one can say is that it is competently made. There was one memorable shot in it. At night, Hughes and Frank are having hamburgers at the Long Beach airport, the camera at a high angle looking down on them. We then reverse the angle and see that they are staring at the colossal Spruce Goose in its hangar. But that’s about it as far as visual creativity and drama go. And I hate to say it, but that lack of creativity extends to Beatty’s performance. Twelve years ago I was not enamored with Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance as Hughes in The Aviator, but at least he tried for the basic outline and design of the man. In Rules Don’t Apply, Hughes does not appear until about twenty minutes into the film. But from the outset, this reviewer was surprised at how superficial Beatty’s acting was. There are several films that survive of Hughes today. Watching those films would be a starting point for any actor. But there seems to me to be very little effort by Beatty to capture any of the vocal inflections or speech patterns of Hughes. And beyond that, there was even less attempt to delineate any of the inner turmoil within the man that finally broke out into dementia in the latter part of the sixties. For me it was a pallid, barely subcutaneous performance from a talented actor who was both vivid and memorable in Bonnie and Clyde, Reds and Bugsy.

    As I said, Beatty has been quite liberal in his use of dramatic license in this film. Even in the past, he has had a tendency to romanticize and glamourize his main characters. As Hughes is waiting for his opening phone call, the subtitle appears that this is taking place in 1964. As I said, the actual phone call took place in 1972. But as I walked out of the theater contemplating the mystery of Beatty’s lackluster performance, I wondered if the date of the call had something to do with his acting. For if Beatty had not fictionalized the call or its timing, then he would have had to present Hughes in a much more extreme state of dementia and emaciation. Evidently, as actor-star, he didn’t want to do that. I can’t really blame him for it. Except for someone as dedicated and meticulous as Robert DeNiro, most major American stars don’t like to present themselves as being that distasteful and unattractive.

    And that seems to me to be a major problem with the film. As outlined above, there are all sorts of intriguing angles about Hughes’ career that can be explored without using dramatic license. With the grand scope of his life, one could actually make a case that Hughes was a tragic character who, as he himself said, screwed up his life at a rather early age. Rules Don’t Apply avoids virtually all those aspects and turns Hughes into your weird Uncle Willie, the relative who got shoved off into a separate room at Christmas. And his film is really a light romantic comedy.

    As I have outlined above, Hughes was a heck of a lot more than that. And the nightmare he lived—touching on the movie business, air travel, the growth of Las Vegas, and the CIA—was a large and fascinating canvas to draw on. Perhaps such a story could only be told through the auspices of a cable channel like HBO, which would give the tale its full airing. Beatty probably should have gone that route. Then he would not have had to reduce this large-scale saga to the status of a fairy tale for adults.

  • Rules Don’t Apply

    Rules Don’t Apply


    For many years Warren Beatty had wanted to do a movie about Howard Hughes. According to various reports, he had dallied with the idea since the seventies. Because Beatty has produced and directed some distinguished films, most of us who heard about this project had some high expectations for it. An accomplished and intelligent Hollywood film-maker was going to take on a fascinating and complex American historical figure, about whom much mystery and fascination have existed. In fact, one could argue that Hughes was the most famous and controversial American billionaire before Donald Trump. Except he was much richer than Trump. To give one example: when Hughes Aircraft was auctioned off in 1985—about a decade after Hughes’s death—it sold for $5.2 billion.

    Trump, early in his career, actually thought of going into the movie business. He then optioned for real estate. Hughes actually did go into the movie business for about a twenty-year period. After that, he became a major real estate investor in the Las Vegas area. As Trump did in Atlantic City, Hughes purchased several hotel-casinos.

    CIA counterintel tsar
    James Angleton

    But in many ways, Hughes’ life and career is much more interesting, complex, and puzzling than Trump’s. In fact, the last part of Hughes’ life is so mysterious that, to this day—over forty years after his death—writers are still trying to figure out the last ten years of it. All one needs to know as to why the mystery exists is this little known fact: Although there is no evidence that Hughes actually met James Angleton, the legendary CIA counter-intelligence chief attended Hughes’ funeral.

    Robert Maheu in Las Vegas

    CIA agent Robert Maheu—who ran Hughes’ Nevada holdings for four years—once said about him that Hughes wanted to “set himself into an alliance with the CIA that would protect him from investigation by government agencies.” (Playboy, September , 1976, “The Puppet and the Puppetmasters”, by Laurence Gonzales and Larry DuBois) After Maheu was unceremoniously expelled from his position as Hughes’ manager in Nevada at the end of 1970, the CIA found a way to mitigate Hughes’ fear about government inquiries. They secretly contracted out with Hughes for something called Project Jennifer. This was a top secret operation that was budgeted at about $350 million. The idea was to build a huge salvage ship that would surface a sunken Russian submarine in the Pacific about 700 miles from Hawaii. At that time, it was one of the largest contracts for a single national security item the CIA had ever extended. This, of course, allowed the Agency to plant agents inside the company.

    But this was only a rather small part of the cross-pollination of Hughes companies with the CIA. On April 1, 1975, The Washington Post reported that “Hughes Aircraft had been mentioned as a potential hotbed of interrelationships with the CIA.” For the simple reason that “Hughes gravitated into areas that other people refused to go into or didn’t believe in.” (op. cit. DuBois and Gonzales) This allowed the CIA to negotiate with Hughes for many of their black budget items. Time magazine once reported that, in the last ten years of his life, the CIA had contracted out about six billion dollars worth of this kind of work to Hughes. This is why, as more than one investigator has noted, at times it was difficult to know where the Hughes empire ended and the CIA began.

    This problem did not just exist with Hughes Aircraft, but also with Hughes Tool Company, whose chief asset was an oil drill bit which cracked through rock in record time. This device was invented by Hughes’ father, but he refused to market it, preferring to patent and then lease it. It was a sensational success, both nationally and internationally. As one source revealed, the information garnered from these leases became an important part of the Hughes/CIA relationship because of the Agency’s interest in resource-recovery information. Other countries could not keep the true value of their petroleum resources secret anymore. (ibid)

    Bebe Rebozo with Nixon

    Even Hughes Medical Institute was not immune to this melding of interests. HMI was originally set up in 1953 in Florida with much fanfare. Hughes announced it would be a great research institute that would benefit all mankind. In reality, it was a tax dodge scheme. Much of the profits from Hughes Aircraft were funneled through HMI. Now Hughes would not have to pay taxes on them since HMI was designed as a tax exempt charity, with Hughes as the sole trustee. But by the late sixties, as Hughes became more eccentric, incapacitated, and cut off from the outside world, and as his interests became entwined with the Agency, there were reports that HMI became a CIA front. One Pentagon official told Time words to that effect. When, on instructions from Hughes, employee John Meier went on a visit to HMI in 1969, he learned the same thing from HMI president Ken Wright. He also learned that Wright was siphoning off money to Richard Nixon’s close friend Bebe Rebozo. (Lisa Pease, “Howard Hughes, John Meier, Don Nixon and the CIA”, Probe Magazine, January-February 1996) All these instances, and more, explain why Angleton was quite appreciative of the opportunities Hughes gave the Agency to extend its reach and power.  In fact, the role of Hughes with the Agency was joked about in the halls of Langley. There, they referred to Hughes as “The Stockholder”. (Jim Hougan, Spooks, p. 259)

    We should add one more notable point about this particular issue. Most commentators seem to agree that a central crossroads in Hughes’ life and career was a mysterious journey that he made to Boston in 1966. While in Boston, he stayed at the Ritz-Carlton. But he also visited a hospital whose physician in chief was George Thorn, a director of Hughes Medical Institute. (Howard Hughes: His Life and Madness, by Donald Bartlett and James Steele, p. 276) To this day, no one knows the purpose of this trip, why Hughes was in the hospital, or what was done to him there. But in addition to Thorn’s presence, the security for the Boston journey was arranged by CIA agent Robert Maheu. (ibid, p. 275) It was after this that Hughes made the decision to move his empire to Nevada, and he also went into a state of near hibernation. He moved into the top floor of the Desert Inn hotel and began to inject himself with large liquid doses of codeine and Valium.

    Hughes parade after his
    around-the-world flight (1938)

    In addition to all the above intrigue, Hughes was a movie producer and director for a period of about twenty years. After he lost interest in films, he still ran the RKO studio as a kind of absentee owner until the fifties, when he sold it. He was a record-breaking airplane pilot. In 1935, piloting a plane he himself commissioned, he easily smashed the prevailing air speed record. In 1936 and 1937, he set four consecutive records for transcontinental flight times. (Bartlett and Steele, pp. 82-87) In 1938 Hughes cut Charles Lindbergh’s flight time from New York to Paris in half. That same year, as part of the same flight, Hughes did the same with the late Wally Post’s round the world flight. (ibid, pp. 94-97) For that achievement Hughes and his four-man crew received a ticker tape parade down Broadway that rivaled Lindbergh’s.

    Donald Nixon’s diner

    Then there was Hughes’ relationship with Richard Nixon. The Internal Revenue Service recognized that Hughes had set up a tax scam with HMI, and refused to give the so-called medical center the necessary tax exemption. So Hughes did what he became famous for: he found a way to grease a politician’s palm. Except, in this case, it was the politician’s brother. Donald Nixon was having problems with a business enterprise called Nixonburgers—a combination fast food venture and shopping center. He was tendered a loan for over two hundred thousand dollars—well over a million today. The loan came from Hughes. It was extended in December of 1956, a month after the presidential election in which President Dwight Eisenhower and Vice-President Richard Nixon were re-elected. The loan was secured by a plot of land in Whittier, California—except the lot was worth, at most, about $50,000. Once the transaction was completed, Hughes headquarters in Hollywood notified the Vice-President all was in place for his brother Donald. (ibid, p. 204) That phone call was made in February of 1957. On March 1st, the IRS reversed its decision about Hughes Medical Center: the tax dodge scheme was now made legal.


    Actress Jean Peters
    Hughes & Noah Dietrich

    In the late fifties, Hughes began to struggle with his personal demons and galloping eccentricities. One of America’s richest and most powerful men called an old friend in Texas and told him he had ruined his life beyond repair. (ibid, p. 225) For instance, his marriage to actress Jean Peters in 1957 seems to have been a marriage of convenience. Hughes thought that his long time employee, Noah Dietrich, was plotting to have him declared incompetent so as to appoint a conservator over his affairs. Once married, this could not be done unless Peters approved it. (Beatty refers to this aspect more than once in his film) So, after 32 years, Hughes ended up firing Dietrich. There was reason for Hughes to fear such a coup. For example, when once facing a financial crisis with TWA, he lived and worked out of a screening room in West Hollywood for months. (ibid, p. 231) Unlike the depiction in the Martin Scorsese/Leonardo DiCaprio film, The Aviator, it appears it was at this time that he began to act bizarrely: walking around nude, spending hours in the bathroom, refusing to touch doorknobs etc. He also became addicted to drugs, e.g., painkillers like codeine and sedatives like Valium.

    The TWA Constellation,
    which Hughes requested
    Lockheed to build

    After losing control of TWA in 1965, Hughes decided to sell his stock in that company. That transaction, worth well over a half billion dollars, was one of the largest single stock sales in history up to that time. To lower his taxes, he then decided to move to Las Vegas. He promptly purchased both the Desert Inn and the Sands hotel casinos in 1967. Shortly after, he purchased the Castaways, the Landmark, and the Frontier hotels plus the Silver Slipper casino. He also bought a local TV station. As with his Nixon bribe, he then assigned a lawyer on his staff to run envelopes full of cash to scores of politicians in the state, both Democrats and Republicans. (ibid, p. 344) Hughes had designs on buying every major hotel-casino on the Las Vegas Strip, and then extending his empire north to Reno and Lake Tahoe. For all intents and purposes, he was going to own Nevada.

    The Desert Inn (1967)

    He made one mistake. He had moved too far too fast. He had Nevada pretty much sewn up; even Governor Paul Laxalt was in his corner. (ibid, p. 307) But after the TWA stock sale he was now billed as the richest man in America. And he now seemed intent on using that money to buy Las Vegas. When word leaked out he was going to buy the Stardust, the Justice Department stepped in: If that sale was announced they would file suit on anti-monopoly grounds. This was anathema to Hughes, because it would necessitate him appearing in court—which he would never do.

    Once his plans to take over the state were neutralized, Hughes’ life entered its final, almost surreal chapter. It is so strange, so fantastic, that it has generated a surfeit of controversy. In 1970, Jean Peters began divorce proceedings against Hughes. His behavior now began to get even more bizarre: for instance, he began to urinate into glass bottles and then cap them. (ibid, p. 426) Rumors of a palace coup based on declaring Hughes incompetent again began to swirl. This time they were spread by Maheu about Bill Gay, the head of Hughes operations in Los Angeles. Hughes now moved out of his penthouse at the Desert Inn and, for no apparent reason, relocated to Paradise Island in the Bahamas. He then moved from the Bahamas to Nicaragua, to London, to Vancouver, to Acapulco. Hughes reportedly passed away in Mexico and his body was flown to his hometown of Houston in April of 1976.

    With the size, scope and drama of this kind of life and career, the subject of Hughes has provoked dozens of essays, books, and even novels; for example, Harold Robbins’ pulp novel, The Carpetbaggers, which was later made into a movie. Much of this output was generated after he passed away. In addition to more than one full length biography, there have been books devoted solely to Hughes’ actions in Hollywood, or in Las Vegas. There have been four films I know of that have dealt with Hughes either as the major character or a supporting figure. Jonathan Demme’s 1980 film Melvin and Howard deals with the much questioned incident between Hughes and one Melvin Dummar, who claimed to have picked up Hughes on a highway in Nevada and driven him to the Desert Inn. Years later, a Hughes will was discovered in a Mormon church in Salt Lake City. It left Dummar $150 million. But in 1978, a jury declared that the will was invalid.

    To my knowledge, there have been two films made strictly about Hughes. In 1977 Tommy Lee Jones starred in a four-hour television mini-series entitled The Amazing Howard Hughes, which was based upon Noah Dietrich’s 1972 book. This is the only film I know that tries to trace the entire arc of Hughes’ adult life. In 2004, Martin Scorsese directed The Aviator starring Leonardo DiCaprio as Hughes. This film was a hundred million dollar super production that concentrated on Hughes in Hollywood. It made liberal use of dramatic license. Especially near the end where it portrayed the extreme symptoms of Hughes’ dementia about ten years earlier than they actually occurred—and impacting events they did not impact.

    The Hoax (2006)

    In 2006, Lasse Hallstrom directed Richard Gere as author Clifford Irving in The Hoax. That film depicts the episode where Irving attempts to pass off a manuscript he wrote about Hughes as being based upon hundreds of hours of private interviews he did with the reclusive billionaire. Irving sold the book to McGraw-Hill for over $700,000. The publisher did not go far enough in testing Irving or the manuscript, for Irving had never even met Hughes, let alone interviewed him. He had procured the manuscript of the Dietrich book and used that for much of his work. The caper later unraveled when it was discovered that Irving’s wife had deposited checks the publisher made out for Hughes into her personal bank account in Switzerland.

    Warren Beatty’s current Hughes film begins with a fictionalized version of the Irving affair. In reality, Hughes made his famous phone call contesting the book from the Bahamas to a Hollywood sound stage at Universal Studios. The much ballyhooed event was televised live. Hughes had issued a press release saying he had nothing to do with the Irving manuscript, which had generated significant publicity well before it was printed. Therefore seven reporters had gathered on stage, along with an eighth person who was a Hughes PR official. The reporters—like James Bacon and Vernon Scott—had all covered Hughes extensively. They were there to hear the man’s voice and ask him questions about his past that he should have been able to recall. And they would use these to see if it was really Hughes on the line and to measure his denials about the book. Considering the fact he was under the high dosages of Valium and codeine injected into his body via syringe, Hughes did fairly well. But there were still certain questions that he could not answer, and these left malingering questions about the book. Those were later dashed by the discovery of the spouse’s foreign bank deposits.

    Beatty’s film, entitled Rules Don’t Apply, fictionalizes the phone call. It treats it as a complete triumph. It subtitles the scene as taking place in 1964 and the call being from Acapulco. Also, the purported autobiography has now become a novel which claims Hughes has amnesia and cannot recall the last five years of his life. From here, the film flashes backwards in time to the very end of Hughes’ film career to pick up the main body of the story. Towards the end of that part of his life—and for a few years after—Hughes had a curious habit. He had made stars out of relative unknowns Jean Harlow and Jane Russell in, respectively, Hell’s Angels and The Outlaw. From these promotions Hughes apparently thought he had the Midas touch with young starlets. For even though he was not really active in the movie business, he would send employees of his, like Maheu, out as talent scouts to say, a Miss America contest. They would sign up one or two young ladies and Hughes would pay for certain dancing, singing, and drama classes.

    This was a very minor part of Hughes’ career, and most serious biographers deal with it in, perhaps, a page or so. But Beatty has made it the fulcrum of his film. After the movie’s prelude, with Hughes preparing for the live phone call about the ersatz book, he begins the film proper with a mother and daughter arriving in Los Angeles after being signed by a Hughes agent. The mother gets tired of waiting around and tells the daughter Hughes is playing around with her. The mother (played by Beatty’s wife Annette Bening) then leaves.

    Gail Ganley

    The girl that the story concentrates on is named Maria Mabrey. I assume, because of the use of alliteration in the name, that this character was based upon a woman named Gail Ganley. Ganley was a promising singer who was signed by Hughes, given acting classes, and told to keep her deal with Hughes a secret. She was promised $450 a week, plus expenses, and a future contract with Hughes. A driver transported her to her lessons each day in a Hughes auto. She was to keep the arrangement secret from everyone except those in her immediate family. And she was also to hold herself ready for a meeting with Hughes about her career. But as weeks dragged into months, none of what she was promised—the weekly salary, or the Hughes contract—actually materialized. When she complained about the delay she was put off by being told that Hughes was simply too busy at this time to deal with her—but he would in the future. She finally raised such a ruckus that she was told to drive to the Hughes headquarters at 7000 Romaine in Hollywood. She did and, as instructed, she honked her horn three times. On cue, a window flew open from the second floor. A man lowered an envelope with money in it by a string. This action was repeated a couple of times, but Ganley never got her contract. She later sued and received an out of court settlement. This weird ritual then ended. (Bartlett and Steele, pp. 243-44)

    The “Spruce Goose”

    The story progresses through a relationship developed between Mabrey (played by Lily Collins) and her driver, a character named Frank Forbes (Alden Ehrenreich).   Like Ganley, Mabrey begins to complain about the lack of progress with her career. Frank tells her about a plot of land he wants to develop with another Hughes employee named Levar Mathis (Matthew Broderick). Frank , who is engaged, begins to lose interest in his fiancée and gets entangled emotionally with Mabrey. Frank hopes to interest Hughes in his land deal. One night he drives Hughes to see the infamous Spruce Goose in Long Beach. On the way Hughes reminds him that his employees should not be having relationships with each other (hence the film’s title).

    Noah Dietrich (Martin Sheen) tells Hughes that he is beginning to act eccentrically—he is forgetful and repeating phrases. Hughes suspects Dietrich is plotting against him in order to have him declared incompetent. So he fires him and promotes Forbes. Mabrey then meets with Hughes, and in a rather odd scene, she starts crying and drinking, and he then proposes to her. The two get carried away and have sex. This happens while a Wall Street banker is calling Hughes, trying to see him about saving his investment in TWA.

    Mabrey gets pregnant and tells Hughes, who does not believe her and thinks she is out for his money. She and Frank have an argument about Hughes with her saying that her mother was right about him using people. Hughes then says he wants to travel the world, so the film actually does a flash-forward. We see Hughes with Frank and Levar in Nicaragua, and then London—where Hughes pilots a plane. (This really happened and is one of the very last times anyone in the outside world saw Hughes.) While in Nicaragua, Hughes is informed the U.S. government is suing him for $645 million. He is then advised by one of his attorneys that he must sell Hughes Tool Company—founded by his father—to pay for it.

    The film then returns to the phone call. Maria arrives with her son, who wanders around the suite and into Hughes’ bedroom. Hughes does not recognize him. On the phone he tells the reporters he has never met or seen the author of the book. Frank now decides to quit his job. He runs after Maria and the two, including Hughes’ son, leave the eccentric billionaire forever.


    As noted previously, Beatty had contemplated doing a film about Hughes for a long time. Because of that, plus the fact that Beatty has made some distinguished historical films, many had high hopes for this film. Consider his track record in this regard. In 1967 he produced and acted in Bonnie and Clyde, which is both a classic and a milestone in American film history. In 1981 he produced, co-wrote, starred in and directed Reds, a moving chronicle about the life of American journalist John Reed. In 1991, he co-produced and starred in Bugsy, an entertaining and well-acted film about gangster Benjamin Siegel and the creation of Las Vegas. He also starred in The Parallax View in 1974, a tense, taut thriller about the assassinations of the sixties.

    But in the last thirty years, Beatty has only appeared in six films prior to Rules Don’t Apply. And excepting Bugsy, those films have been, at best, non-distinctive—Dick Tracy, Love Affair, Bulworth; at worst, disasters—Ishtar, Town and Country. That record makes one wonder just how interested Beatty is, at age 79, in making films at this stage in his life. Because Rules Don’t Apply seems to me to be rather uninspired for a film that Beatty has contemplated doing for so long. One can excuse all of the rather excessive use of dramatic license if it adds up to something justifiable on its own. But the best one can say about the film’s meaning is that it shows us how two young people finally see that Howard Hughes is an irresponsible scoundrel who, for all his money, is someone they would be better off without. Which is the same message one can get from, say, the film of The Devil Wears Prada.

    As a film, the best one can say is that it is competently made. There was one memorable shot in it. At night, Hughes and Frank are having hamburgers at the Long Beach airport, the camera at a high angle looking down on them. We then reverse the angle and see that they are staring at the colossal Spruce Goose in its hangar. But that’s about it as far as visual creativity and drama go. And I hate to say it, but that lack of creativity extends to Beatty’s performance. Twelve years ago I was not enamored with Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance as Hughes in The Aviator, but at least he tried for the basic outline and design of the man. In Rules Don’t Apply, Hughes does not appear until about twenty minutes into the film. But from the outset, this reviewer was surprised at how superficial Beatty’s acting was. There are several films that survive of Hughes today. Watching those films would be a starting point for any actor. But there seems to me to be very little effort by Beatty to capture any of the vocal inflections or speech patterns of Hughes. And beyond that, there was even less attempt to delineate any of the inner turmoil within the man that finally broke out into dementia in the latter part of the sixties. For me it was a pallid, barely subcutaneous performance from a talented actor who was both vivid and memorable in Bonnie and Clyde, Reds and Bugsy.

    As I said, Beatty has been quite liberal in his use of dramatic license in this film. Even in the past, he has had a tendency to romanticize and glamourize his main characters. As Hughes is waiting for his opening phone call, the subtitle appears that this is taking place in 1964. As I said, the actual phone call took place in 1972. But as I walked out of the theater contemplating the mystery of Beatty’s lackluster performance, I wondered if the date of the call had something to do with his acting. For if Beatty had not fictionalized the call or its timing, then he would have had to present Hughes in a much more extreme state of dementia and emaciation. Evidently, as actor-star, he didn’t want to do that. I can’t really blame him for it. Except for someone as dedicated and meticulous as Robert DeNiro, most major American stars don’t like to present themselves as being that distasteful and unattractive.

    And that seems to me to be a major problem with the film. As outlined above, there are all sorts of intriguing angles about Hughes’ career that can be explored without using dramatic license. With the grand scope of his life, one could actually make a case that Hughes was a tragic character who, as he himself said, screwed up his life at a rather early age. Rules Don’t Apply avoids virtually all those aspects and turns Hughes into your weird Uncle Willie, the relative who got shoved off into a separate room at Christmas. And his film is really a light romantic comedy.

    As I have outlined above, Hughes was a heck of a lot more than that. And the nightmare he lived—touching on the movie business, air travel, the growth of Las Vegas, and the CIA—was a large and fascinating canvas to draw on. Perhaps such a story could only be told through the auspices of a cable channel like HBO, which would give the tale its full airing. Beatty probably should have gone that route. Then he would not have had to reduce this large-scale saga to the status of a fairy tale for adults.