Myths of the Golden Era -- Exploded!

[LizzieMaine]

I'm pretty sure those screams were also post-dubbed -- most newsreel footage of this sort was shot silent, and it's unlikely they had a sound truck at Lakehurst for what was expected to be a routine landing.

That's a great reel, though -- it was actually in theatres the day after the crash. One more myth is that newsreels were usually far behind the acutal news -- in fact they could get the pictures out remarkably quick.

The announcer for that reel is Alois Havrilla, a former NBC staff man who worked for Pathe for many years.

 

[jamespowers]

I'm pretty sure those screams were also post-dubbed -- most newsreel footage of this sort was shot silent, and it's unlikely they had a sound truck at Lakehurst for what was expected to be a routine landing.

That's a great reel, though -- it was actually in theatres the day after the crash. One more myth is that newsreels were usually far behind the acutal news -- in fact they could get the pictures out remarkably quick.

The announcer for that reel is Alois Havrilla, a former NBC staff man who worked for Pathe for many years.

I was pretty sure the screams were added.
Newsreels were in fact timely. If they weren't, they would be called history reels.
Good information to know. Thanks.

 

[David Conwill]

I was pretty sure the screams were added.
Newsreels were in fact timely. If they weren't, they would be called history reels.
Good information to know. Thanks.

I think the idea was that maybe people's perceptions of "timely" had changed - sort of like the transition from the nightly news to instant news updates via your smartphone. Waiting for "news at 11" is no longer a timely way to get info.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The "big five" newsreels -- Fox Movietone, Pathe, Universal, Hearst Metrotone, and Paramount -- produced two full seven to ten-minute editions a week, all year round, with occasional "extras" like the Hindenburg reel when news warranted. The effect wasn't so much that of a nightly newscast as it was a biweekly news magazine.

The real exception among the newsreels was "The March Of Time," which usually only covered one story in each edition, and did so in considerable depth. The mainstream reels went out of their way to *not* be provocative, especially after Hearst reels were booed and picketed off the screen around the country during the labor battles of 1936-37, but "The March Of Time" had a definite Lucean point of view that it wasn't afraid to express.

 

[Gingerella72]

Have there ever been accounts from the Hindenburg survivors published?

 

[LizzieMaine]

Herb Morrison interviewed some of them immediately after the disaster -- the entire recording he made that day runs about forty minutes. They were obviously in shock and barely able to speak -- one man was described as having all his clothing and hair burned off, but he was still able to walk and mumbled something with a thick German accent before moving on.

There were also interviews published in the newspapers in the days immediately after -- here's an example.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Digging out this fine old thread because of a radio commercial I heard on the way to work this morning -- a promo for a "historical podcast" that made the following statement: "In the Fifties, ***the GOVERNMENT*** (original emphasis) wouldn't let you see Elvis's hips on TV!"

Well, I don't know what the rest of the commercial said, or what else the podcast proposed to discuss, because I was rolling my eyes so hard I almost drove into the back of a beer truck. What we have here is not just a Myth, but a myth that's been turned into a piece of overt propaganda targeting the ignorant, the gullible, and the misled. It's been fashionable over the past forty years, of course, to blame ***the GOVERNMENT*** for everything -- but this is one I'd honestly never heard before, and it deserves some comment.

That Elvis's twitching pelvis was subjected to television censorship in the 1950s is one of those things that "everybody knows," no doubt because this vital historical incident has been covered so thoroughly by popular media, but to state that ***the GOVERNMENT*** had anything whatsoever to do with this is a statement with no basis whatsoever in reality. No government authority had anything to do with any censorship of Elvis or of his hips at any time. When Mr. Presley made his first network television appearance, on the Dorsey Brothers' "Stage Show" program over CBS in 1956, his pelvis twitched in full view of the cameras. It also did so when he appeared later that year on Milton Berle's show on NBC. But when he was booked to appear, on the strength of this performance, on Ed Sullivan's program, it was *Sullivan himself,* not the sponsor, not CBS, and not **the GOVERNMENT** who directed that the cameras shoot him only from the waist up -- as a direct result of complaints from Catholic religious authorities, not ***the GOVERNMENT*** about Presley's gyrations during the Berle appearance.

Now, this is not secret information. It's well known to anyone who does even the most cursory research into the incident. But saying "an AGING NEW YORK NEWSPAPER COLUMNIST wouldn't let you see Elvis's hips on TV" doesn't make for much of a provocative podcast, does it? You'd almost think there was some other agenda at work, but that's impossible, right? Alternative media "always tells the truth," not like the sheeple of the MSM. Right???

Incidentally, that whole hip-twitching bit didn't originate with Elvis. He stole it, lock, stock, and swivel, from Al Jolson.

 

[Fading Fast]

Digging out this fine old thread because of a radio commercial I heard on the way to work this morning -- a promo for a "historical podcast" that made the following statement: "In the Fifties, ***the GOVERNMENT*** (original emphasis) wouldn't let you see Elvis's hips on TV!"

Well, I don't know what the rest of the commercial said, or what else the podcast proposed to discuss, because I was rolling my eyes so hard I almost drove into the back of a beer truck. What we have here is not just a Myth, but a myth that's been turned into a piece of overt propaganda targeting the ignorant, the gullible, and the misled. It's been fashionable over the past forty years, of course, to blame ***the GOVERNMENT*** for everything -- but this is one I'd honestly never heard before, and it deserves some comment.

That Elvis's twitching pelvis was subjected to television censorship in the 1950s is one of those things that "everybody knows," no doubt because this vital historical incident has been covered so thoroughly by popular media, but to state that ***the GOVERNMENT*** had anything whatsoever to do with this is a statement with no basis whatsoever in reality. No government authority had anything to do with any censorship of Elvis or of his hips at any time. When Mr. Presley made his first network television appearance, on the Dorsey Brothers' "Stage Show" program over CBS in 1956, his pelvis twitched in full view of the cameras. It also did so when he appeared later that year on Milton Berle's show on NBC. But when he was booked to appear, on the strength of this performance, on Ed Sullivan's program, it was *Sullivan himself,* not the sponsor, not CBS, and not **the GOVERNMENT** who directed that the cameras shoot him only from the waist up -- as a direct result of complaints from Catholic religious authorities, not ***the GOVERNMENT*** about Presley's gyrations during the Berle appearance.

Now, this is not secret information. It's well known to anyone who does even the most cursory research into the incident. But saying "an AGING NEW YORK NEWSPAPER COLUMNIST wouldn't let you see Elvis's hips on TV" doesn't make for much of a provocative podcast, does it? You'd almost think there was some other agenda at work, but that's impossible, right? Alternative media "always tells the truth," not like the sheeple of the MSM. Right???

Incidentally, that whole hip-twitching bit didn't originate with Elvis. He stole it, lock, stock, and swivel, from Al Jolson.

I heard that commercial too and, I think, what followed the fake Elvis information was (paraphrasing as I heard it only once a few days ago) "while at the same time the government was running a brothel in broad daylight."

I don't remember any more information other than a reference to the podcast series. I could be wrong and there might have been more said, I just don't remember.

It seemed to me, the "hook" was to show the hypocrisy of a conservative government censoring a singer from shaking his hips on TV while also running a whorehouse. That's why - and this doesn't justify it one bit - I think they were emphasizing the false claim that the government had censored Elvis on TV.

And we haven't even talked about The Rolling Stones spending "some time together" with a girl versus "a night together" or Jim Morrison singing "girl we couldn't get much higher" versus Sullivan's preferred "girl we couldn't get much better."

 

[LizzieMaine]

Yeah, that was the one. Something about CIA brothels or some such.

It really does give you a lot of confidence in the whole concept of "podcasting," the idea that any rando on the internet can pretend to be a historian or a journalist and people will lap it up without question. Gawdhelpus.

 

[Haversack]

One of the brothels run by the CIA as part of Operation Midnight Climax was at 225 Chestnut Street on Telegraph Hill in San Francisco. It ran from 1954 to 1963. The operation was uncovered by Seymour Hersh in 1977. The Chronicle ran a sort on it here.

 

[Edward]

I heard that commercial too and, I think, what followed the fake Elvis information was (paraphrasing as I heard it only once a few days ago) "while at the same time the government was running a brothel in broad daylight."

I don't remember any more information other than a reference to the podcast series. I could be wrong and there might have been more said, I just don't remember.

It seemed to me, the "hook" was to show the hypocrisy of a conservative government censoring a singer from shaking his hips on TV while also running a whorehouse. That's why - and this doesn't justify it one bit - I think they were emphasizing the false claim that the government had censored Elvis on TV.

And we haven't even talked about The Rolling Stones spending "some time together" with a girl versus "a night together" or Jim Morrison singing "girl we couldn't get much higher" versus Sullivan's preferred "girl we couldn't get much better."

As I recall the story, Jimbo, bless 'im, leered into the camera, live on air, and yelled "HIGHER" as loud as he could when he got to that part of the number....

Cracking signer and performer, Morrison, but I don't know that I'd have cared to spend a huge amount of time around him on a personal level.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It really is difficult to censor live broadcasting, especially in the days before tape delay. You can tell somebody not to do something, but if they want to do it, they will, and once it's done, it's did.

There was a big scandal in the late forties, when NBC got its snoot in a knot about Fred Allen making disparaging remarks about network vice presidents. They sent him a long chain of memos warning him to stop, but he went on the air and started a joke about a network vice president who cut the ends off programs that ran long and saved up the little bits of time until he had two weeks saved up and went on vacation. He no sooner said "vice president" then the network cut him off the air for twenty seconds, which immediately made them a national laughing stock. Then they cut off Bob Hope and Red Skelton for making jokes about Allen getting cut off, and the entire thing spun completely out of control from there.

One of the reasons the big networks finally dropped their ban on pre-recorded programming was to avoid being made the butt of these kinds of situations.

As for Elvis, Steve Allen had the best solution. After the brouhaha erupted over Mr. Pelvis's performance on the Berle show, he booked him as a guest on his own show -- and had him sing "Hound Dog" while dressed in a crisp white tux, to an actual hound dog. Some commentators have used this as an example of Elvis being forced to demean himself to get on television, but in fact the whole thing was a gag, a thumb in the eye to the kind of people who were complaining, and Elvis gladly went along with it.

 

[Fading Fast]

As I recall the story, Jimbo, bless 'im, leered into the camera, live on air, and yelled "HIGHER" as loud as he could when he got to that part of the number....

Cracking signer and performer, Morrison, but I don't know that I'd have cared to spend a huge amount of time around him on a personal level.

All from memory, so could be wrong, I think Morrison agreed to sing the word "better" and, then, went back on his word on air. If true, I've never respected that.

 

[vitanola]

Incidentally, that whole hip-twitching bit didn't originate with Elvis. He stole it, lock, stock, and swivel, from Al Jolson.

to wit:

 

[Edward]

All from memory, so could be wrong, I think Morrison agreed to sing the word "better" and, then, went back on his word on air. If true, I've never respected that.

As I remember, they were instructed by the show that this was the way it would be - there was no 'request' or negotiation - but Morrison didn't make a thing of it, just went ahead and did what he did. As a choice it is what it is; it seems as an artist he chose that hill to die on so to speak, though obviously in full awareness they'd never get back on that show again. I can see both angles. There is part of me appreciates the 'artist temperament' here given how many acts these days think solely of commercial viability first and foremost. I'm somewhat more sympathetic to the show when it's a case of them being given heavy broadcast restrictions rather than their own limits. But then I'm also of an age where I've seen much, much worse on mainstream television, so it perhaps seems less a sin than it was at the time.

 

[Zombie_61]

As I remember, they were instructed by the show that this was the way it would be - there was no 'request' or negotiation - but Morrison didn't make a thing of it, just went ahead and did what he did. As a choice it is what it is; it seems as an artist he chose that hill to die on so to speak, though obviously in full awareness they'd never get back on that show again. I can see both angles. There is part of me appreciates the 'artist temperament' here given how many acts these days think solely of commercial viability first and foremost. I'm somewhat more sympathetic to the show when it's a case of them being given heavy broadcast restrictions rather than their own limits. But then I'm also of an age where I've seen much, much worse on mainstream television, so it perhaps seems less a sin than it was at the time.

Spot on. I think incorrect memories and personal perspectives have, over time, made this more of an issue than it ever really was. As I've heard/read the story, someone in the production of Ed Sullivan's show told the band (and specifically Jim Morrison, I suppose) they were concerned about the lyric and told them--not asked or demanded, but simply told them--to change it. The band just sort of shrugged it off, then performed the song as originally written without even discussing it. After the performance they were informed they would never be welcomed back, and that was pretty much the end of it because the negative reaction that the producers were concerned about never materialized.

 

[tonyb]

...
Cracking signer and performer, Morrison, but I don't know that I'd have cared to spend a huge amount of time around him on a personal level.

Which is why I part company these days with more than a few people with whom I generally agree.

I’d rather talented people were admirable in all other aspects of their beings. But then, I’d rather that was true of the untalented as well.

I hear that Flannery O’Connor, nearly a saint in the hearts and minds of the English majors at the Jesuit schools, frequently uttered the N word and made undeniably racist observations in her personal correspondence.

Stop the emeffin’ presses! A Southern white woman of her time harbored racist sentiments! And expressed those sentiments in casual exchanges with her friends!

Any person who has lived as long as I have in the places I have and in the company of the people I have ought not be at all surprised by this. Perhaps O’Connor’s attitudes about race were more common among Southerners than Northerners, but I’ve heard equally racist notions expressed by my Northern fellow travelers, in politer terms, perhaps, but racist nonetheless, even if they don’t recognize it. Good for them that they’ll never be famous and once they’re dead they’ll be of no consequence, lest our progeny all line up to pee on their graves 50 years from now.

 

[Edward]

Which is why I part company these days with more than a few people with whom I generally agree.

I’d rather talented people were admirable in all other aspects of their beings. But then, I’d rather that was true of the untalented as well.

I hear that Flannery O’Connor, nearly a saint in the hearts and minds of the English majors at the Jesuit schools, frequently uttered the N word and made undeniably racist observations in her personal correspondence.

Stop the emeffin’ presses! A Southern white woman of her time harbored racist sentiments! And expressed those sentiments in casual exchanges with her friends!

Any person who has lived as long as I have in the places I have and in the company of the people I have ought not be at all surprised by this. Perhaps O’Connor’s attitudes about race were more common among Southerners than Northerners, but I’ve heard equally racist notions expressed by my Northern fellow travelers, in politer terms, perhaps, but racist nonetheless, even if they don’t recognize it. Good for them that they’ll never be famous and once they’re dead they’ll be of no consequence, lest our progeny all line up to pee on their graves 50 years from now.

It's a tricky one. I do lean to the view that it is often unfair to judge someone out of context: by any modern standard, Hippocrates was a pretty rubbish doctor. As Arthur Miller once said, "Even a genius is limited by his own time and place." - I haven't committed the full quote to memory, but essentially he said he'd rather be treated by the least of today's medical graduates than Hippocrates himself. The thing is, of course, that if we go too far that way, then a lot of real nasties get a big pass. Churchill is a good example, of course - his racism was legendary in his day, and even many members of his own party during his second period in government (from 1951) thought he crossed a line by some way. The "of his time" argument does somewhat negate any real concept of personal responsibility.

The reality, of course, is that humanity is simply a much more complex beast than comfortable, binary distinctions of good / bad permit. My mother at university in the years during which the modern 'troubles' kicked off back in NI had a tutor who was one of the kindest, most helpful people you could ever meet - until he would interrupt his tutorials to listen to the news, and openly celebrate the murder of certain personnel with whom he differed politically. It rather feels to me that while the ideal is, as you say:

I’d rather talented people were admirable in all other aspects of their beings. But then, I’d rather that was true of the untalented as well.

we all need to begin to accept that all people are a parcel of both good and bad, and that neither necessarily negates or wipes out the other. If we can manage that with something like art - as in recognising and appreciating the talent of the artist without denying their unpleasant side too, why not "national heroes" or more broadly of the human experience? In all truth, I do believe the "Great Man" theory of history has a lot for which to answer in the brutally simplistic binary vision that is common today.

The people I feel are often hardest done by through the lens of history are those who were trying to improve and maybe did make an incremental improvement. Even if it was only a step rather than the full journey, that's the sort of nuance I do believe we need to take into account properly.

TL/DR: life is an awful lot more complicated than it would sometimes be nice to believe!

 

[Edward]

Spot on. I think incorrect memories and personal perspectives have, over time, made this more of an issue than it ever really was. As I've heard/read the story, someone in the production of Ed Sullivan's show told the band (and specifically Jim Morrison, I suppose) they were concerned about the lyric and told them--not asked or demanded, but simply told them--to change it. The band just sort of shrugged it off, then performed the song as originally written without even discussing it. After the performance they were informed they would never be welcomed back, and that was pretty much the end of it because the negative reaction that the producers were concerned about never materialized.

The context may change, of course, but it is ever true that many producing mainstream media content will often be more conservative (small c) than their viewers, most often out of concern not to get in trouble, or not to upset their viewership with the result that either they get in trouble (complaints to regulators) or lose viewership (a problem for advertising-funded broadcasters; with the BBC, a problem for justifying its funding model on a more philosophical level). I can see sometimes a tension between that at great, "event" television. Some publicity you just can't buy (even if it's all "good" publicity, in the Wildean analysis).

Of course, for anyone who wants to sell themselves as counter-cultural, there's also a distinct benefit to being "banned" from television. It's interesting to muse on what might have happened had the Doors fallen into the same orbit as Malcolm Maclaren at the right time.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The thing to always remember in talking about American broadcasting, especially in the Era, is that it was never, ever "free." The NAB and its mouthpieces at Broadcasting magazine would discourse at length on the superiority of the so-called "American system of broadcasting" where there was no "government control" of what was broadcast, as opposed to the "European plan" where state-owned entitites controlled the air. But anyone working in the creative end of broadcasting soon found that this "freedom" was very much a myth -- everything they said or did on the air was controlled to the smallest degree by advertising agencies, sponsors, and network censors.

And some of this control was extraordinarily petty. One one occasion, comedian Jack Benny wanted to do a plug for the Damon Runyon Cancer Fund at the end of one of his shows -- but he was forbidden to do so by his sponsor, the makers of Lucky Strike cigarettes, who had a strict prohibition on any mention of cancer on any program they were connected with. When the live-TV-drama showcase "Playhouse 90" broadcast the play "Judgement At Nuremberg," dealing with the trials of Nazi war criminals, the phrase "gas ovens," as in Auschwitz, was muted every time it was spoken -- on the orders of the program's sponsor, the American Gas Association. You could fill a book with this kind of "freedom."

As for judging artists and their personal attitudes and beliefs by modern standards, I find that it's always helpful to keep one thing in mind: those artists were not creating their works for the 21st Century. They were creating them for the specific audience of the world that they lived in, and the things they created are not "timeless" in any way. They're artifacts of a specific place and time, as are the artists who created those works. You can either try to understand them in that context, or you can leave them alone and move on. Eventually, most the works of the 20th Century will be as antiquated and remote as most of the works of the 19th are already, and the world will move on. And this applies equally to works being created today -- everything that humanity creates is merely a snapshot of the time in which it was created.