This really surprises me. I thought we were further along on this issue, at least when it comes to someone who 1. has been dead for 70 years and 2. someone that most of us have known for a long time was at least bisexual. I feel like I've known that piece of info forever, along with Brando, and so has everyone else.
I was just reading today that in the U.K., many are upset about a TV show implying a WWII hero may have been gay, information that was published more than 20 years earlier and had previously led to angry accusations. Apparently, being mad about common information about long-dead people is still a thing.
Like I said I know what I read. Sorry if I disagree with your judgments. I have made many comments about your writing judgments. No more of this since as Dean said “I d rather people hiss than yawn”. Your book set forth what Brackett was about and that is a tribute to your writing. Other areas not so good. I believe Arlene Sacks about her relationship with Dean. She introduced Dean to Roy Schatt, a great photographer, who was one of Dean’s mentors. On your writing in Vivian Matalon, I do not believe him re: Dean’s attempt at affair during his affair with Page. I do not see Matalon in Production or actors in the IBDB entry of the Immoralist. My research indicates that he was working in London Theatre until about a year after Deans death when he then came to the USA.
You are welcome to disagree, but not to claim that critical judgment is itself illegitimate. Vivian Matalon's casting in "The Immoralist" was reported by the New York Times on December 24, 1953, and he was listed in one of the tryout programs as "V. Matalon." His exact role by the Broadway debut is less clear, with earlier secondary sources listing him as the stage manager during the Broadway run and others as playing Dolit. Later reprints of the book for "The Immoralist" listed Matalon as the stage manager in the crew credits. It is my understanding that he may have played Dolit during some tryouts and rehearsals before transitioning to stage manager. His presence in New York in 1953-1954 is attested in "David Blum's Theatre World," which lists him in other productions in those years.
Sorry your critical judgment could be wrong based on your choices on who you want to believe and whether that info meets your conclusion. I have cited much evidence concerning Dean’s heterosexuality in your comments. So why not say Dean was either gay, bi or Heterosexual? I vote for bi.
I literally address this in the book: "There is no way for us to peer inside a dead man’s heart, and debating whether he would today have labeled himself gay, bisexual, heteroflexible, homoflexible, demisexual, queer, or something else is both irrelevant and ahistorical." You have chosen to see what you want to see in my book rather than what is actually written in it.
Key word you used was judged. Your opinion on what was true and what you wanted to focus on. This includes your opinion on Dean/Brackett relationship in your latest column which was in anyone’s opinion, very dysfunctional and many parts negative and almost criminal, based on Brackett’s actions towards Dean. As Dean stated upon blackmail extortion claim “I did not know that the whore was supposed to pay.” Finally this relationship started when Dean was 20 years old and Brackett was near 35. I know what I read. You can have your thesis about what Dean was about but your continual focus was the gay aspects of Dean’s life and your view of the lack of acceptance of that by many. You made choices like many authors do when you wrote the book as to what you wanted to focus on and what you wanted to use to back it up.
Oh, the horror that an author exercises critical judgment, or that a writer of history evaluates what is likely true; as you know from my end notes, I provided extensive reasoning behind every choice. My book covers 8 years of Dean's life and gives his various relationships proportional coverage; someone he spent a few days or a couple of weeks with shouldn't take up more space than relationships that lasted months or years. You are welcome to disagree with my judgments, but that requires more evidence than simply citing the same faulty texts I critically analyzed in my own book.
You would be better off focusing on JD relationship with Bill Bast which was undoubtedly one of love and was consummated through a sexual relationship. Brackett did help Dean (introduction to Director Jim Sheldon and Producer of See the Jaguar are two examples.) But he was a self serving person who pimped Dean out to other gays and blackmailed him in order to extort money. This extortion continued after JD’s death through “ finders fees” from Warners in order to not expose their relationship. Brackett is part of the record of Dean’s life and had been addressed by authors in the past. Your book finally addressed through Deacy documents, the real story of Brackett’s lack of character which he hid for years in his portrayal as victim. Your books shows that JD was the victim. You also minimize JD’s relationships with women. As you stated you put sexual relations with Lili Kardell in a footnote. Are there were other women who were JD lovers. You repeated the falsehoods that JD never has sexual relations with Pier Angeli. He confessed to Joe Hyams that he thought Pier was carrying his child. So no sex? Barbara Glenn was a passionate sexual affair and there is evidence that his relationships and the sexual components with Liz Sheridan, Ursula Andress, Geraldine Page and others were minimized. JD also has a great relationship with his surrogate parents, the Winslows, his cousin Markie and his grandparents. There is a tape he made in his last visit to Fairmount where he secretly recorded them and the mutual love was apparent. I agree that truth is important and your book did contain truths never reported before. But your book could have been a more neutral perspective on JD bisexuality. Dean, in his own words, was asked if he was homosexual and allegedly replied that “no I am not homosexual but I am also not going through life with one hand tied behind my back.” So as an artist, he was searching for his own truth which was not anywhere near completion before his death.
I didn't "focus" on any particular relationship. Indeed, I not only wrote about Page's claim that she and Dean shook her brass bed with their lovemaking for two straight weeks, but I also cited--in the main text--Lilli Kardell's rather colorful description of the sex acts she claimed Dean performed on her. And I never state definitively anything about who had sex with whom, only what people claimed, giving the most weight to the most plausible evidence. The child story, for instance, bears many of the hallmarks of Dean's practical jokes, and since no one else claimed he told them (though one reported he had made a joke about it), I judged it likely untrue. I think you saw in the book what you wanted to see and not what was actually there.
There's nothing they could sue over since you can't libel the dead, even if everything I wrote were false. I can't say what the issue is, though I suppose if the management company running the estate wanted to, they could threaten not to license images and other materials from their roster of dozens of celebrity estates to anyone who covers this book. That would be rather bizarre, of course.
This really surprises me. I thought we were further along on this issue, at least when it comes to someone who 1. has been dead for 70 years and 2. someone that most of us have known for a long time was at least bisexual. I feel like I've known that piece of info forever, along with Brando, and so has everyone else.
Apparently not.
I was just reading today that in the U.K., many are upset about a TV show implying a WWII hero may have been gay, information that was published more than 20 years earlier and had previously led to angry accusations. Apparently, being mad about common information about long-dead people is still a thing.
just ask the folks over in Shakespeare land...
the question is, is it any old long dead common information or just men being anything other than completely straight?
I'd say the latter is more likely.
Agreed
Like I said I know what I read. Sorry if I disagree with your judgments. I have made many comments about your writing judgments. No more of this since as Dean said “I d rather people hiss than yawn”. Your book set forth what Brackett was about and that is a tribute to your writing. Other areas not so good. I believe Arlene Sacks about her relationship with Dean. She introduced Dean to Roy Schatt, a great photographer, who was one of Dean’s mentors. On your writing in Vivian Matalon, I do not believe him re: Dean’s attempt at affair during his affair with Page. I do not see Matalon in Production or actors in the IBDB entry of the Immoralist. My research indicates that he was working in London Theatre until about a year after Deans death when he then came to the USA.
You are welcome to disagree, but not to claim that critical judgment is itself illegitimate. Vivian Matalon's casting in "The Immoralist" was reported by the New York Times on December 24, 1953, and he was listed in one of the tryout programs as "V. Matalon." His exact role by the Broadway debut is less clear, with earlier secondary sources listing him as the stage manager during the Broadway run and others as playing Dolit. Later reprints of the book for "The Immoralist" listed Matalon as the stage manager in the crew credits. It is my understanding that he may have played Dolit during some tryouts and rehearsals before transitioning to stage manager. His presence in New York in 1953-1954 is attested in "David Blum's Theatre World," which lists him in other productions in those years.
Sorry your critical judgment could be wrong based on your choices on who you want to believe and whether that info meets your conclusion. I have cited much evidence concerning Dean’s heterosexuality in your comments. So why not say Dean was either gay, bi or Heterosexual? I vote for bi.
I literally address this in the book: "There is no way for us to peer inside a dead man’s heart, and debating whether he would today have labeled himself gay, bisexual, heteroflexible, homoflexible, demisexual, queer, or something else is both irrelevant and ahistorical." You have chosen to see what you want to see in my book rather than what is actually written in it.
Key word you used was judged. Your opinion on what was true and what you wanted to focus on. This includes your opinion on Dean/Brackett relationship in your latest column which was in anyone’s opinion, very dysfunctional and many parts negative and almost criminal, based on Brackett’s actions towards Dean. As Dean stated upon blackmail extortion claim “I did not know that the whore was supposed to pay.” Finally this relationship started when Dean was 20 years old and Brackett was near 35. I know what I read. You can have your thesis about what Dean was about but your continual focus was the gay aspects of Dean’s life and your view of the lack of acceptance of that by many. You made choices like many authors do when you wrote the book as to what you wanted to focus on and what you wanted to use to back it up.
Oh, the horror that an author exercises critical judgment, or that a writer of history evaluates what is likely true; as you know from my end notes, I provided extensive reasoning behind every choice. My book covers 8 years of Dean's life and gives his various relationships proportional coverage; someone he spent a few days or a couple of weeks with shouldn't take up more space than relationships that lasted months or years. You are welcome to disagree with my judgments, but that requires more evidence than simply citing the same faulty texts I critically analyzed in my own book.
You would be better off focusing on JD relationship with Bill Bast which was undoubtedly one of love and was consummated through a sexual relationship. Brackett did help Dean (introduction to Director Jim Sheldon and Producer of See the Jaguar are two examples.) But he was a self serving person who pimped Dean out to other gays and blackmailed him in order to extort money. This extortion continued after JD’s death through “ finders fees” from Warners in order to not expose their relationship. Brackett is part of the record of Dean’s life and had been addressed by authors in the past. Your book finally addressed through Deacy documents, the real story of Brackett’s lack of character which he hid for years in his portrayal as victim. Your books shows that JD was the victim. You also minimize JD’s relationships with women. As you stated you put sexual relations with Lili Kardell in a footnote. Are there were other women who were JD lovers. You repeated the falsehoods that JD never has sexual relations with Pier Angeli. He confessed to Joe Hyams that he thought Pier was carrying his child. So no sex? Barbara Glenn was a passionate sexual affair and there is evidence that his relationships and the sexual components with Liz Sheridan, Ursula Andress, Geraldine Page and others were minimized. JD also has a great relationship with his surrogate parents, the Winslows, his cousin Markie and his grandparents. There is a tape he made in his last visit to Fairmount where he secretly recorded them and the mutual love was apparent. I agree that truth is important and your book did contain truths never reported before. But your book could have been a more neutral perspective on JD bisexuality. Dean, in his own words, was asked if he was homosexual and allegedly replied that “no I am not homosexual but I am also not going through life with one hand tied behind my back.” So as an artist, he was searching for his own truth which was not anywhere near completion before his death.
I didn't "focus" on any particular relationship. Indeed, I not only wrote about Page's claim that she and Dean shook her brass bed with their lovemaking for two straight weeks, but I also cited--in the main text--Lilli Kardell's rather colorful description of the sex acts she claimed Dean performed on her. And I never state definitively anything about who had sex with whom, only what people claimed, giving the most weight to the most plausible evidence. The child story, for instance, bears many of the hallmarks of Dean's practical jokes, and since no one else claimed he told them (though one reported he had made a joke about it), I judged it likely untrue. I think you saw in the book what you wanted to see and not what was actually there.
What are the legal issues here, Jason? The press skittish about a lawsuit by the Dean Estate, maybe?
There's nothing they could sue over since you can't libel the dead, even if everything I wrote were false. I can't say what the issue is, though I suppose if the management company running the estate wanted to, they could threaten not to license images and other materials from their roster of dozens of celebrity estates to anyone who covers this book. That would be rather bizarre, of course.