Ann Dvorak had a handful of reasons for walking out on her Warner Bros. contract and traveling to Europe in the summer of 1932; exhaustion, wanderlust, lust in general (she had recently gotten married and wanted to go on a honeymoon). What prompted Ann and her husband Leslie Fenton to take off across the Atlantic is that Fenton was offered a part in the film F.P.1.
F.P.1., a science-fiction/spy drama set on a floating air station, was shot simultaneously in French, German, and English and jointly produced by Gaumont, UFA, and Les Productions Fox Europa. Fenton was cast in a supporting role in the English-language version and jumped at the chance to be involved in the production which was filmed in Berlin and the Baltic Sea. As soon as he confirmed, that also instantly meant that Ann would be coming, as there was no way the couple would have an ocean and continent between them.
Ann was reportedly offered the lead role, which was ultimately played by Jill Esmond, opposite Conrad Veidt. As much as Ann may have wanted to star in appear in another film with her husband (they had previously appeared together in The Strange Love of Molly Louvain before they were married), she knew that appearing in a non-Warner Bros. film would burn her last bridge with the studio. At this point, she wasn’t sure what their reaction was going to be to her lengthy absence, and she decided not to violate her contract further by acting in another studio’s film. It’s kind of a shame that she didn’t make the film, because it would have been a more sophisticated part that what she usually got at Warner Bros.
Ann may have not starred in F.P.1., but did she appear in it anyway? She came with Fenton to the set everyday, and was around so much that the crew nicknamed the couple “the inseperables.” When I sat down to watch the film, it occurred to me that maybe Ann would have been put in the film as an extra, just for kicks. As I sat through it, I had my Ann-detector on and think I may have spotted her. The movie opens with a party scene and for a split second, there is a woman who walks through the frame who bears a striking resemblance to Ann as Cesca Camonte, the character she played in Scarface. I tried to grab a some screen shots, from the moment that lasts maybe 2 seconds.
The one thing that leads me to think it wouldn’t be her is that Fenton is not in the scene, so they would not have been required to be on set. Otherwise, I think there’s a good possibility that it’s our Divine Miss D slinking her way through a couple of frames in F.P.1.
What do you think?
When I am not writing a book about Ann Dvorak or trying to convince a toddler to g0 to bed at a decent hour, I oversee the photo collection at the Los Angeles Public Library (LAPL), which includes the image morgue of the Los Angeles Herald Examiner. These photos start in the mid-1920s and go up to the time the paper folded in 1989, so to say it’s a massive collection is an understatement. While working with this collection, I am always amazed by the shots the photo-journalists would get, and the amount of access they might have to their subjects. Think of the photos you’ve probably seen of Frances Farmer or Robert Mitchum in their cells after being arrested – you would never see that nowadays. The above photo shows Ann and her dad, Edwin McKim, at the Pasadena train station right after he stepped off and was reunited with a daughter he had not seen in well over ten years. Just an intimate moment between Ann, her dad, and a wire service photographer.
If there was one thing the Herald photographers loved back in the day, it was taking pictures of notables in the courtroom. Fortunately for them, celebrities appeared in court A LOT, and for a variety of reasons, and the photographers were right there snapping away. Almost all the photos I am using in my book are from my personal collection, but I did turn to USC, UCLA, and the LAPL collection for seven photos, five of which show Ann in court. One of the images from the LAPL collection is an all time favorite, showing Ann entering the courthouse in February 1936 to battle with Warner Bros. She’s clad in fur and looking like she is ready to step onto a film set rather than the witness stand. I am holding out on you here, and saving the unveiling of these archival photos for the book.
As much as I might admire well-shot portrait by a master like George Hurrell or Clarence Sinclair Bull, coming across a news photo of Ann is always a cheap thrill. The studio portraits depicted ethereal beings, glamorous beyond comprehension, and utterly flawless. The newspaper photographers would capture these same people, but portray them as human. Both types of images serve their purpose, and even though I have six Hurrells of Ann hanging up in my living room, it’s the news photos I get really excited about.
I was inspired to write this post because yesterday I hosted a panel discussion at the library between 10 former Herald Examiner photographers from the 1960s-1980s. It was an exceptional program, which you can read all about from the Los Angeles News Group.
If you haven’t already figured out, I have a massive collection of memorabilia relating to Ann Dvorak. I love every last piece in my collection, even if I sometimes can’t remember buying something or, on the rare occasion, have too much of something. There are a handful of items that standout as favorites, and these photos of Ann during her MGM chorus days are right up there.
I have a lot of photos of Ann in the chorus over at MGM. During her tenure at the studio from 1929-1931, she appeared in over 2o titles and fortunately, stills from these films are not hard to come by. These particular photos are especially amazing to me because they are individual shots of her and there are five of them. What’s even more amazing is that she is not identified by name of the back of the photos, so some film aficionado looked at these decades later and knew who is was, which enabled them to wind up in an Ann Dvorak file at a memorabilia shop and finally into my eager hands.
I bought these at Jerry Ohlinger’s Movie Material Store in 2003. I was visiting New York with a bunch of friends and me and Darin, my collecting partner in crime hit this shop our first day in the city. I pulled out these five photos, along with a few others, which were then handed to Mr. Ohlinger himself for pricing. The chorus shots came back with $30 written in pencil on the back. Being a starving grad-school student at the time, I was outraged, but somehow managed to talk him down to $20 each on two of them and left the other three behind.
By our last day in New York, the thought of not going home with all five photos was consuming me. We had a late afternoon flight back to Los Angeles, and when Darin knocked on the door of my hotel room in the morning, I answered it with, “I need to go back and get those three photos, don’t I?” “Um…yeah!” was the response, and off we went.
We got to the shop and I pulled the three photos, only to be told that Mr. Ohlinger was not in on Sundays, and that staff was not allowed to sell vintage photos in his absence. After an excessive amount of whining on my part, someone finally called him at home and he gave his blessing to sell them to me – for $30, non-negotiable. I paid it.
As we left the store, I started having buyer’s remorse at having dropping $90 on three photos. Darin whipped around and exclaimed, “Three chorus girl photos of Ann Dvorak come up on eBay. $90. Buy It Now. Do you do it?”
“Oh heck ya,” I immediately replied.
And I have never regretted buying these since.
Movie memorabilia comes in all shapes in sizes. While most pieces were made for promotional use only, some things were specifically manufactured for public consumption. Postcards fall into this category, and even the most obscure of actors can usually be found on them. In some cases, film postcards can cost a pretty penny but fortunately, Ann Dvorak does not fall into that category. Here’s a selection from my collection, including one of Ann’s mom, Anna Lehr.
That’s right – every night we dine next to a giant 81″x 81″ Ann Dvorak head.
I have a very patient husband.
I don’t have a whole lot of news to report on the Ann Dvorak book, but there are a couple of items. First, the book is definitely on the roster for Fall 2013, so we will be seeing it this year! The Fall catalog should be coming out sometime in the Spring, so we should have a book cover soon. I sent in a few portraits for Kentucky Press’ designers to choose from, so I am excited to see how it turns out.
Secondly, the title is indeed going to be Ann Dvorak: Hollywood’s Forgotten Rebel. For some reason, I wasn’t sure they were going to keep it, but they thought it a good enough hook, plus it sums up Ann perfectly, and I agree! Since Hollywood’s Forgotten Rebel has been the title of this website since 2007, I guess it makes sense to go with it and now that I know it’s the book’s title, I like it even more.
That’s it for now. Hopefully, I will have a firm release date soon. I will also be calling on all of you loyal Dvorak devotees for marketing suggestions. Ann-D may be better know now than she was when I first discovered her in 1995, but it’s still going to take a lot of work to convince people they want to read an entire book about her!
Some of the other classic film bloggers are having a little fun starting this week with the 3rd annual Classic Movie Actresses Tournament. Different sites are hosting different decades of the tournament, and you can see the full run down over at A Mythical Monkey Writes About the Movies. Amazingly enough, our dear Ann is included in the 1930s bracket, though she’s rather unfairly pitted against Marlene Dietrich. She seems to be holding her own so far, but can probably use a boost from some of her devoted fans. So, if you get a second, pop on over to All Good Things blog and cast your vote for the Divine Ms. Dvorak. Voting for this first round wraps up on Wednesday evening.
On March 4, 1935, Ann Dvorak reported for her first day of work on the Warner Bros. feature “G” Men, starring James Cagney. The role of Jean Morgan may not have been a big one for Ann, but “G” Men was a bigger budget production than most, if not all, of the films she had made the previous year. Plus, she was going to be acting opposite one of the studio’s biggest stars. This was the second and (unfortunately) last time Ann acted with Cagney, with whom she had shared the screen two years earlier in The Crowd Roars. The chemistry between them is undeniable, especially during her death scene, so it’s really a shame they didn’t do more together.
1935 had really been shaping up to be a banner year career-wise for Ann. In December, she had wrapped up Sweet Music opposite Rudy Vallee, for a ’35 release, and Bright Lights with Joe E. Brown and Dr. Socrates with Paul Muni were just around the corner. Maybe these weren’t the most notable titles on Warner Bros. release list for 1935, but they were largely a step-up from the mountain of quickie programmers the studio had cast her in from late 1933 through most of 1934. Yup, things were looking up for Ann…and then came the loan-out to 20th Century that infuriated her, mysterious illnesses, lengthy suspensions, and a lawsuit. But, you’ll be able to read all about it in a certain book due to come out in a few months. 😀
On Thursday, March 7th, the Roxie Theater in San Francisco is going to be presenting a tribute to Ann’s frequent co-star Lyle Talbot, with the double feature Fog Over Frisco and Heat Lightning. Talbot’s daughter Margaret will be on hand to introduce the films and talk about her recently released (and excellent) book, The Entertainer: Movies, Magic, and My Father’s Twentieth Century.
If you’ve been reading this blog for awhile, you already know how much I love Heat Lightning. Ann’s role is supporting, but it’s a strong part, and the film overall is a compact and snappy pre-Code gem. Preston Foster is smarmy, Lyle Talbot is Wimpy, Glenda Farrell & Ruth Donnelly are charming, and Aline MacMahon is just plain awesome. Unfortunately, this one is playing a bit too far out of my zip code, but if you’re in the Bay Area, it sounds like a memorable evening.
First off, I apologize for the poor quality of this photo, which was taken around 2002 with a really early digital camera. For those of you in the know (or not), a 3-sheet measures 41″x 81″, so I was probably standing on a chair when I took this and attempting to shoot the photo before my dearly departed Thelma Kitty ran into the shot.
I’m pretty sure this We Who Are About to Die poster was the first 3 sheet I ever owned, and I think I paid over $100 for it, which was a tidy some in those grad school days. I love this poster since it has a giant Ann Dvorak head, though it is disappointing that Preston Foster did not make it onto the artwork. One thing I should point out about my particular copy is that it is mounted on craft paper and looks like someone used it as a drop cloth for painting at one point. Some movie posters just can’t get any respect!
I guess with today’s vastly improved technology, I could drag out this poster and take another photo of it. Since I am barely keeping up with this one-a-day commitment, it probably won’t happen any time soon, so try to enjoy this gorgeous 1937 poster and early example of crappy digital photography.