Studies in decadence: The Rockefeller and the Ballet Boys

Larraín with de Ribes in 1961, in an Avedon shot.

Larraín with de Ribes in 1961, in an Avedon shot.

From the special archives: Articles you should not have missed.

conspire with the native military and the United States in the defense of their privileges, and to further their common project of systemic exploitation without end.—Guillermo Valdés Ureta

As told on Vanity Fair by the inimitable Dominick Dunne. 
____________________________________________

THE MAGAZINE / Originally published on February 1987

DANSE MACABRE

The Rockefeller and the Ballet Boys

 Dominick Dunne
Another spectacular will contest is dividing the dinner parties of tony America. The recently deceased was Margaret Strong, a plain-Jane Rockefeller who always attracted effete men. Her first husband was the ballet-mad Marquis de Cuevas. Her second was nearly forty years her junior: Raymundo de Larrain, who gave her a wheelchair and new teeth for the wedding. And then, according to her children, milked her out of $30 million. On the eve of the trial, the author investigates a society redolent of black orchids.

There is no one, not even his severest detractor, and let me tell you at the outset of this tale that he has a great many severe detractors, who will not concede that Raymundo de Larrain, who sometimes uses the questionable title of the Marquis de Larrain, is, or at least was, before he took the road to riches by marrying a Rockefeller heiress nearly forty years his senior, a man of considerable talent, who, if he had persevered in his artistic pursuits, might have made a name for himself on his own merit. Instead his name, long a fixture in the international social columns, is today at the center of the latest in a rash of contested-will controversies in which wildly rich American families go to court to slug it out publicly for millions of dollars left to upstart spouses the same age as or, in this case, younger than the disinherited adult children.

The most interesting person in this story is the late possessor of the now disputed millions, Margaret Strong de Cuevas de Larrain, who died in Madrid on December 2, 1985, at the age of eighty-eight, and the key name to keep in mind is the magical one of Rockefeller. Margaret de Larrain had two children, Elizabeth and John, from her first marriage, to the Marquis George de Cuevas. The children do not know the whereabouts of her remains, or even whether she was, as a member of the family put it, incinerated in Madrid. What they do know is that during the eight years of their octogenarian mother’s marriage to Raymundo de Larrain, her enormous real-estate holdings, which included adjoining town houses in New York, an apartment in Paris, a country house in France, a villa in Tuscany, and a resort home in Palm Beach, were given away or sold, although she had been known throughout her life to hate parting with any of her belongings, even the most insubstantial things. At the time of her second marriage, in 1977, she had assets of approximately $30 million (some estimates go as high as $60 million), including 350,00 shares of Exxon stock in a custodian account at the Chase Manhattan Bank. The location of the Exxon shares is currently unknown, and the documents presented by her widower show that his late wife’s assets amount to only $400,000. Although these sums may seem modest in terms of today’s billion-dollar fortunes, Margaret, at the time of her inheritance, was considered one of the richest women in the world. There are two wills in question: a 1968 will leaving the fortune to the children and a 1980 will leaving it to the widower. In the upcoming court case, the children, who are fifty-eight and fifty-six years old, are charging that the will submitted by de Larrain, who is fifty-two, represents “a massive fraud on an aging, physically ill, trusting lady.”

Although Margaret Strong de Cuevas de Larrain was a reluctant news figure for five decades, the facts of her birth, her fortune, and the kind of men she married denied her the privacy she craved. However, her children, Elizabeth, known as Bessie, and John, have so successfully guarded their privacy, as well as that of their children, that they are practically anonymous in the social world in which they were raised. John de Cuevas, who has been described as almost a hermit, has never used the title of marquis. He is now divorced from his second wife, Sylvia Iolas de Cuevas, the niece of the art dealer Alexander Iolas, who was a friend of his father’s. His only child is a daughter from that marriage, now in her twenties. He maintains homes in St. James, Long Island, and Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he teaches scientific writing at Harvard. Bessie de Cuevas, a sculptor whose work resembles that of Archipenko, lives in New York City and East Hampton, Long Island. She is also divorced, and has one daughter, twenty-two, by her second husband, Joel Carmichael, the editor of Midstream, a Zionist magazine so reactionary that it recently published an article accusing the pope of being soft on Marxism. Friends of Bessie de Cuevas told me that she was never bothered by the short financial reins her mother kept her on, because she did not fall prey to fortune hunters the way her sister heiresses, like Sunny von Bülow, did.

Margaret Strong de Cuevas de Larrain, the twice-titled American heiress, grew up very much like a character in a Henry James novel. In fact, Henry James, as well as William James, visited her father’s villa outside Florence when she was young. Margaret was the only child of Bessie Rockefeller, the eldest of John D. Rockefeller’s five children, and Charles Augustus Strong, a philospher and psychologist, whose father, Augustus Hopkins Strong, a Baptist clergyman and theologian, had been a great friend of old Rockefeller’s. A mark of the brilliance of Margaret’s father was that, while at Harvard, he competed with fellow student George Santayana for a scholarship at a German university and won. He then shared the scholarship with Santayana, who remained his lifelong friend. Margaret was born in New York, but the family moved shortly thereafter to Paris. When Margaret was nine her mother died, and Strong, who never remarried, built his villa in Fiesole, outside Florence. There, in a dour and austere atomosphere, surrounded by intellectuals and philosophers, he raised his daughter and wrote scholarly books. His world provided very little amusement for a child and no frivolity.

Each year Margaret returned to the United States to see her grandfather, with whom she maintained a good relationship, and to visit her Rockefeller cousins. Old John D. was amused by his serious and foreign granddaughter, who spoke several languages and went to school in England. Later, she was one of only three women attending Cambridge University, where she studied chemistry. Never, even as a young girl, could she have been considered attractive. She was big, bulky, and shy, and until the age of twenty-right she always wore variations of the same modest sailor dress.

Her father was eager for her to marry, and toward that end Margaret went to Paris to live, although she had few prospects in sight. Following the Russian Revolution there was an influx of Russian émigrés into Paris, and Margaret Strong developed a fascination for them that remained with her all her life. She was most excited to meet the tall and elegant Prince Felix Yusupov, the assassin of Rasputin, who was said to have used his beautiful wife, Princess Irina, as a lure to attract the womanizing Rasputin to his palace on the night of the murder. In Paris, Prince Yusupov had taken to wearing pink rouge and green eye shadow, and he supported himself by heading up a house of couture called Irfé, a combination of the first syllables of his and his wife’s names. Into this hothouse of fashion, one day in 1927, walked the thirty-year-old prim, studious, and unfashionable Rockefeller heiress. At that time Prince Yusupov had working for him an epicene and penniless young Chilean named George de Cuevas, who was, according to friends who remember him from that period, “extremely amusing and lively.” He spoke with a strong Spanish accent and expressed himself in a wildly camp manner hitherto totally unknown to the sheltered young lady. The story goes that at first Margaret mistook George de Cuevas for the prince. “What do you do at the couture?” she asked. “I’m the saleslady,” he replied. The plain, timid heiress was enchanted with him, and promptly fell in love, thereby establishing what would be a lifelong predilection for flamboyant, effete men. The improbable pair were married in 1928.

Raymundo Larraín with Jacqueline de Ribes.

Celebrity fotog Raymundo Larraín with social sponsor Jacqueline de Ribes in another iconic pose (1961, Avedon). Tout pour les arts, mes amis…

From then on Margaret abandoned almost all intellectual activity. She stepped out of the pages of a Henry James novel into the pages of a Ronald Firbank novel. If her father had been the dominant figure of her maidenhood, George de Cuevas was the controlling force of her adult existence. Their life became more and more frivolous, capricious, and eccentric. Through her husband she discovered an exotic new world that centered on the arts, especially the ballet, for which George had a deep and abiding passion. Their beautiful apartment on the Quai Voltaire, filled with pets and bibelots and opulent furnishings, became a gathering place for the haute bohème of Paris, as did their country house in St.-Germain-en-Laye, where their daughter, Bessie, was born in 1929. Their son, John, was born two years later. Along the way the title of marquis was granted by, or purchased from, the King of Spain. The Chilean son of a Spanish father, George de Cuevas is listed in some dance manuals as the eighth Marquis de Piedrablanca de Guana de Cuevas, but the wife of a Spanish grandee, who wished not to be identified, told me that the title was laughed at in Spain. Nonetheless, the Marquis and Marquesa de Cuevas remained a highly visible couple on the international and artistic scenes for the next thirty years.

When World War II broke out, they moved to the United States. Margaret, already a collector of real estate, began to add to her holdings. She bought a town house on East Sixty-eighth Street in New York, a mansion in Palm Beach, and a weekend place in Bernardsville, New Jersey. She also acquired a house in Riverdale, New York, which they never lived in but visited, and one in New Mexico to be used in the event the United States was invaded. In New York, Margaret always kept a rented limousine, and sometimes two, all day every day in front of her house in case she wanted to go out.

Although Margaret had inherited a vast fortune, she was to inherit a vaster one through the persistence of her husband. George de Cuevas’s wooing of his wife’s grandfather, old John D. Rockefeller, turned Margaret from a rich woman into a very rich woman. While John D. had bestowed liberal inheritances on his four daughters during their lifetimes, he believed in primogeniture, and in his late seventies he turned over the bulk of his $500 million fortune to his only son, John D. Rockefeller Jr., the father of Abby, John D. III, Nelson, Laurance, Winthrop, and David. He retained the income for himself. Margaret at that time was indifferent to her inheritance, but George, for whom the prospect of Rockefeller millions had surely been a lure in his choice of a life mate, was not one to sit back and watch what he felt should be his wife’s share pass on to her already very rich Rockefeller cousins. He set about to charm his grandfather-in-law, and charm him he did. He even became his golfing companion. Rockefeller had never come across such a person as this eccentric bird of paradise that his granddaughter had married. Surprisingly, he not only was amused by him but genuinely liked him. The family legend goes that one day George took Bessie and John by the hand to see the old man and said, “Do you want to see your great-grandchildren starve because their mother has not been taken care of the way the rest of the Rockefellers have been?” The tycoon calmly assured him that Margaret would be provided for. Old John D. then began investing his enormous income in the stock market and in the last years of his life made a second fortune, the bulk of which he left to Margaret on his death, when she was forty years old.

In 1940, in Toms River, New Jersey, George de Cuevas became an American citizen and renounced his Spanish title, claiming he would henceforth be known merely as George de Cuevas. However, he continued to be referred to by his title, and once his role as a ballet impresario grew to international prominence, he changed the name of the company associated with him throughout his career from the Ballet de Monte Carlo to the Grand Ballet du Marquis de Cuevas. From 1947 to 1960 the marquis toured the company all over the world, with the financial support of his wife, who donated 15 percent of her income to his troupe. He introduced American dancers to France and French dancers to America, and soon became a beloved figure in the dance world. The impresario Sol Hurok in his biography described him as “a colorful gentleman of taste and culture … perhaps the outstanding example we have today of the sincere and talented amateur in and patron of the arts.”

Actually, de Cuevas is better remembered for one episode of histrionics and temperament than for any of his productions. In 1958 the dancer and choreographer Serge Lifar, then fifty-two years old, became angry when the marquis’s company changed the choreography of his balletBlack and White. After a heated exchange of words the marquis, who was seventy-two at the time, slapped Lifar in the face with a handkerchief in public and then refused to apologize. Lifar challenged de Cuevas to a duel, and the marquis accepted. Although neither of the combatants was known as a swordsman, épées were chosen as the weapons. The location of the duel was to be kept secret because dueling was outlawed in France, but more than fifty tipped-off reporters and photographers showed up at the scene. The encounter was scheduled to last until blood was drawn. For the first four minutes of the duel Serge Lifar leapt about while the marquis remained stationary. In the third round the marquis forced Lifar back by simply advancing with his sword held straight in front of him, and pinked his opponent. It was not clear, according to newspaper accounts of the duel, whether skill or accident brought the maraquis’s blade into contact with Lifar’s arm. “Blood has flowed! Honor is saved!” cried Lifar. Both men burst into tears and rushed to embrace each other. Reporting the event on its front page, the New York Times said that the affair “might well have been the most delicate encounter in the history of French dueling.”

As a couple, the Marqius and Marquesa de Cuevas became increasingly eccentric. “It was unconventional, their marriage, but, curiously, it worked,” said the Viscountess Jacqueline de Ribes, who was a frequent guest in their Paris apartment. “There were always people waiting in the hall to have an audience—it was like a court,” said one family member. Another longtime observer of the inner workings of the de Cuevas household, Jean Pierre Lacloche, said, “Margaret was always in her room during the parties. She hated coming out, but usually finally did. She gave in to all of George’s pranks. She didn’t care. He made life interesting around her.” George de Cuevas often received visitors lying in bed wearing a black velvet robe with a sable collar and surrounded by his nine or ten Pekingese dogs, while Margaret grew more and more reclusive and slovenly in her dress. She always wore black and kept an in-residence dressmaker to make the same dress for her over and over again. When she traveled to Europe, she would book passage on as many as six ships and then be unable to make up her mind as to which day she wanted to sail. If she wanted to go from Palm Beach to New York, she would book seats on every train for a week, and then not be able to make the commitment to move. Once, unable to secure a last-minute booking on a Paris-Biarritz train and determined to leave, no matter what, she piled her daughter, maid, ten Pekingese dogs, and her luggage into a Paris taxicab and had the driver drive her the five hundred miles to Biarritz. The trip took three days.

George De Cuevas liked to entertain, and he filled their homes with society figures, titles, celebrated artists and dancers, and constant flow of Russian émigrés. “At the Cuevas parties were such as the Queen Mother of Egypt, Maria Callas, and of course, Salvador Dali, who was a regular in the house,” said Mafalada Davis, an Egyptian-born public-relations woman who was a great friend of George de Cueva’s. George was a giver of gifts. He bought old furs and jewels from the poor Russians in Paris and gave them away as presents. He gave the Viscountess de Ribes a sable coat, and he gave Mrs. Gurney Munn of Palm Beach a watch on which he had engraved “May the ticking of this watch remind you of the beauty of your faithful heart.”

Somehow, in the midst of this affluent chaos on two continents, Bessie and John de Cuevas were raised. A relative of the family told me that Margaret had a good strong relationship with her children. “Not a peasant-type relationship,” he said, “not conventional,” meaning, as I understood him, not many hugs and kisses, but strong in its way. Another relative said, “After a short period with her children—and later with her grandchildren—she was ready to send them out to play or to turn them over to their nanny.” Margaret, who throughout her life was notorious for never being on time, arrived so late for her daughter’s coming-out party at the Plaza hotel in New York, which was attended by all of her Rockefeller relations, that she almost missed it. When Bessie was seventeen she met Hubert Faure, who became her first husband. “She was an extraordinary-looking person,” said Faure about his former wife, with whom he has retained a close friendship. “English-American in intellect with a Spanish vitality behind that.” Hubert Faure, now the chairman of United Technology, was not at the time considered much of a catch by the Marquis de Cuevas, who wanted his daughter to marry a Spanish grandee and possess a great title. But Bessie exhibited a early independence: she went ahead and married Faure in Paris when she was nineteen, with no family and only another couple in attendence. John, her brother, was also married for the first time at an early age. The children, as Bessie and John are regularly referred to in the upcoming court case with Raymundo de Larrain, have at times shown a bemused attitude about their life. Once, when questioned about her nationality, Bessie described herself as a third-generation expatriate. John, during a brief Wall Street career, was asked by a colleague if he could possibly be related to a mad marquesa of the same name. “Yes,” he is said to have replied, “she is a very distant mother.”

The apex of the social career of George de Cuevas was reached in 1953 with a masked ball he gave in Biarritz; it vied with the Venetian masked ball given by Carlos de Beistegui in 1951 as the most elaborate fête of the decade. France at the time was paralyzed by general strike. No planes or trains were running. Undaunted, the international nomads, with their couturier-designed eighteenth-century costumes tucked into their steamer trunks, made their way across Europe like migrating birds to participate in thetableaux vivants at the Marquis de Cuevas’s ball, an event so extravagant that it was criticized by both the Vatican and the left wing. “People talked about it for months before,” remembered Josephine Hartford Bryce, the A&P heiress who recently donated her costume from that ball to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. “Everyone was dying to go to it. The costumes were fantastic, and people spent most of the evening just staring at each other.” As they say in those circles, “everyone” came. Elsa Maxwell dressed as a man. The Duchess of Argyll, on the arm of the duke, who would later divorce her in messiest divorce in the history of British society, came dressed as an angel. Ann Woodward, of the New York Woodwards, slapped a woman she thought was dancing too often with her husband, William, whom she was to shoot and kill two years later. King Peter of Yugoslavia waltzed with a diamond-tiara’d Merle Oberon. And at the center of it all was the Marquis George de Cuevas, in gold lamé with a headdress of grapes and towering ostrich plumes, who presided as the King of Nature. He was surrounded by the Four Seasons, in the costumed persons of the Count Charles de Ganay, Princess Marella Caracciolo, who would soon become the wife of Fiat king Gianni Agnelli, Bessie, his daughter, and her then husband, Hubert Faure. As always, Margaret de Cuevas did the unexpected. For days beforehand, her costume designed by the great couturier Pierre Balmain, who had paid her the honor of coming to her for fittings, hung, like a presence, on a dress dummy in the hallway of the de Cuevas residence in Biarritz. But Margaret did not appear at the ball, although, of course, she paid for it. She may have been an unlikely Rockefeller, but she was still a Rockefeller, and the opulence, extravagence, and sheer size (four thousand people were asked and two thousand accepted) of the event offended her. She simply disappeared that night, and the party went on without her. She did, however, watch the arrival of the guests from a hidden location, and a much repeated, but unconfirmed, story is that she sent her maid to the ball dressed in her Balmain costume.

George de Cuevas increasingly made his life and many homes available to a series of young male worldings who enjoyed the company of older men. In the early 1950s Margaret de Cuevas purchased the town house adjoining hers on East Sixty-eighth Street in New York. The confirmation-of-sale letter from the realty firm of Douglas L. Elliman & Co. contained a cautionary line: “The Marquesa detests publicity and would appreciate it if her name weren’t divulged.” An unkind novel by Theodore Keogh, called The Double Door, depicted the marriage of George and Margaret and their teenage daughter. The double door of the title referred to that point of access between the two adjoining houses, beyond which the wife of the main character, a flamboyant nobleman, was not permitted to go, although the houses were hers. The drama of the novel revolved around the teenage daughter’s clandestine romance with one of the handsome young men beyond the double door. Inevitably, the marriage of George and Margaret de Cuevas began to founder, and for the most part they occupied their various residences at different times. They maintained close communication, however, and Margaret would often call George in Paris or Cannes from New York or Palm Beach to deal with a domestic problem. Once when the marquesa’s temperamental chef in Palm Beach became enraged at one of her unreasonable demands and threw her breakfast tray at her, she called her husband in Paris and asked him to call the chef and beseech him not only not to quit but also to bring her another breakfast, because she was hungry. George finally persuaded the chef to recook the breakfast, but the man refused to carry it to Margaret. A maid in the house had to do that.

At this point in the story, Raymundo de Larrain entered the picture. “Raymundo is not just a little Chilean,” said a lady of fashion in Paris about him. “He is from one of the four greatest families in Chile. The Larrains are aristocratic people, a better family by far than the de Cuevas family.” Whatever he was, Raymundo de Larrain wanted to be something more than just another bachelor from Chile seeking extra-man status in Paris society. He was talented, brilliant, and wildly extravagant, and soon began making a name for himself designing costumes and sets for George de Cuevas’s ballet company. A protégé of the marquis’s to start with, he soon became known as his nephew. An acquaintance who knew de Larrain at the time recalled that the card on the door of his sublet apartment first read M. Larrain. Later it became M. de Larrain. Later still it became the Marquis de Larrain.

In Bessie de Cuevas’s affidavit in the upcoming probate proceedings, she emphatically states that although various newspapers have described de Larrain as the nephew of her father and suggested that he was raised by her parents, there was no blood relation between the two men. In a letter to an American friend in Paris, she wrote, “He is not my father’s nephew. I think he planted the word long ago in Suzy’s column. If there is any relationship at all, it is so remote as to be meaningless.” Yet as recently as November, when I spoke with de Larrain in Palm Beach, he referred to George de Cuevas as “my uncle.” The fact of the matter is that Raymundo de Larrain has been described as a de Cuevas nephew and has been using the title of marquis for years, and he was on a familiar basis with all members of the de Cuevas family. Longtime acquaintances in Paris remember Raymundo calling Margaret de Cuevas Tante Margaret or, sometimes, perhaps in levity, Tante Rockefeller. In her book The Case of Salvador Dali, Fleur Cowles described the Dali set in Paris as follows: “On May 9th, 1957, the young nephew of the Marquis de Cuevas gave a ball in honour of the Dalis. According to Maggi Nolan, the social editor of the Paris Herald-Tribune, the Marquis Raymundo de Larrain’s ball was ‘unforgettable’ in the apartment which has been converted … into a vast party confection,” with “the most fabulous gala-attired members of international society.” Fleur Cowles then went on to list the guests, including in their number the Marquis de Cuevas himself, without his wife, and M. and Mme. Hubert Faure, his daughter and son-in-law. Although Cowles did not say so, George de Cuevas almost certainly paid for Raymundo’s ball.

Along the way de Larrain met the Viscountess Jacqueline de Ribes, one of the grandest ladies in Paris society and a ballet enthusiast to boot. “Before Jacqueline, no one had ever heard of Raymundo de Larrain except as a nephew of de Cuevas. Jacqueline was his stepping-stone into society,” said another lady of international social fame who did not wish to be identified. The viscountess became an early admirer of his talent, and they entered into a close relationship that was to continue for years, sharing an interest in clothes and fashion as well as the ballet. Raymundo de Larrain is said to have made Jacqueline de Ribes over and given her the look that has remained her trademark for several decades. A famous photograph taken by Richard Avedon in 1961 shows the two of them in exotic matching profiles. At a charity party in New York known as the Embassy Hall, chaired by the Viscountess de Ribes, Mrs. Winston Guest, and the American-born Princess d’Arenberg, Raymundo de Larrain’s fantastical butterfly décor was so extravagant that there was no money left for the charity that was meant to benefit from the event. In time the viscountess became known as the godmother of the ballet, and she, more than any other person, pushed the career of Raymundo de Larrain.

After the publication of The Double Door, the de Cuevases were often the subject of gossip in the sophisticated society in which they moved, but somehow they had the ability to keep scandal within the family perimeter. The relationship of both husband and wife with the unsavory Jan de Vroom, however, almost caused their peculiar habits to be open to public scrutiny. A family member said to me that at this point in Margaret de Cuevas’s life she fell into a nest of vipers. Born in Dutch Indonesia, Jan de Vroom was a tall, blond adventurer who dominated drawing rooms by sheer force of personality rather than good looks. A wit, a storyteller, and a linguist, he had an eye for the main chance, and like a great many young men before him looking for the easy ride, he attached himself to George de Cuevas. De Vroom was quick to realize on which side the bread was buttered in the de Cuevas household, and, to the distress of the marquis, who soon grew to distrust him, he shifted his attentions to Margaret, whom he followed to the United States. At first Margaret was not disposed to like him, but, undeterred by her initial snubs, he schooled himself in Mozart, whom he knew to be her favorite composer, and soon found favor with her as a fellow Mozart addict. He got a small apartment in a brownstone a few blocks from Margaret’s houses on East Sixty-eighth Street and was always available when she needed a companion for dinner. She set him up in business, as an importer of Italian glass and lamps. From Europe, George de Cuevas tried to break up the deepening intimacy, but Margaret, egged on by her friend Florence Gould, ignored her husband’s protests. As the friendship grew, so did de Vroom’s store of acquisitions. He was a sportsman, and through Margaret de Cuevas’s bounty he soon owned a sleek sailing boat, a fleet of Ferrari cars, a Rolls Royce, and—briefly, until it crashed—an airplane. He also acquired an important collection of rare watches.

Raymundo de Larrain and Jan de Vroom detested each other, and Jan, in the years when he was in favor with Margaret, refused to have Raymundo around. De Vroom had no wish to join the ranks of men who made their fortune at the altar; he was content to play the role of son to Margaret, a sort of naughty-boy son whose peccadilloes she easily forgave. A mixer in the darker worlds of New York and Florida, he entertained her with stories of his subterranean adventures. Often, in her own homes, she would be the only woman present at a dining table full of men who were disinterested in women.

In 1960 the Marquis de Cuevas, in failing health, offered Raymundo de Larrain, with whom he was now on the closest terms, the chance to create a whole new production of The Sleeping Beauty, to be performed at the Théâtre de Champs-Élysées. De Larrain’s Sleeping Beauty is still remembered as one of the most beautiful ballet productions of all time, and it was the greatest box-office success the company had ever experienced. The marquis was permitted by his physicians to attend the premiere. “If I am going to die, I will die backstage,” he said. After the performance he was pushed out onto the stage in a wheelchair and received a standing ovation. George de Cuevas attended every performance up until two weeks before his death. He died at his favorite of the many de Cuevas homes, Les Délices, in Cannes, on February 22, 1961. Margaret, who was in New York, did not visit her husband of thirty-three years in the months of his decline. In his will George left the house in Cannes to his Argentinean secretary, Horacio Guerrico, but Margaret was displeased with her husband’s bequest and managed to get the house back from the secretary in exchange for money and several objects of value.

Although Margaret had never truly shared her husband’s passion for the ballet, or for the ballet company bearing his name, which she had financed for so many years, she did not immediately disband it after his death. Instead she appointed Raymundo de Larrain the new head of the company. There was always a sense of dilettantism about George de Cuevas’s role as a Maecenas of the dance—not dissimilar to the role Rebekah Harkness would later play with her ballet company. The taste and caprices of the marquis determined the policy of the company, which relied on the box-office appeal of big-star names. This same sense of dilettantism carried over into de Larrain’s contribution. The de Cuevas company has been described to me by one balletomane as ballet for people who normally despise ballet, ballet for society audiences, as opposed to dance audiences.

De Larrain’s stewardship of the company was brief but not undramatic. In June 1961 he played a significant role in the political defection of Rudolf Nureyev at the Paris airport when the Kirov Ballet of Leningrad was leaving France. The story has become romanticized over the years, and everyone’s version of it differs. According to de Larrain, Nureyev had confessed to Clara Saint, a half-Chilean, half-Argentinean friend of de Larrain’s, that he would rather commit suicide than go back to Russia. In one account, Clara Saint, feigning undying love for the departing star, screamed out to Nureyev that she must have one more kiss from him before he boarded the plane and returned to his homeland. Nureyev went back to kiss her, jumped over the barriers, and escaped in a waiting car as the plane carrying the company took off. De Larrain says that Clara Saint had alerted the French authorities that there was going to be a defection, and she advised Nureyev during a farewell drink at the airport bar that he must ask the French police at the departure gate for political asylum. He says that Nureyev spat in the face of the Russian security official. For a while Nureyev lived in de Larrain’s Paris apartment, and the first time he danced after his defection was for the de Cuevas company, in de Larrain’s production of The Sleeping Beauty. “He danced like a god, but he also had a spectacular story,” de Larrain told me. At one of his first performances the balcony was filled with Communists, who pelted the stage with tomatoes and almost caused a riot. People who were present that night remember that Nureyev continued to dance through the barrage, as if he were unaware of the commotion, until the performance was finally halted.

In Raymundo de Larrain’s affidavit for the probate, he assesses his role in Nureyev’s career in an I’m-not-nobody tone: “With the help of Margaret de Cuevas we made him into one of the biggest stars in the history of ballet.” The professional association between de Larrain and Nureyev, which might have saved the de Cuevas ballet, did not last, just as most of de Larrain’s professional associations did not last. “Raymundo and Rudolf did not have the same point of view on beauty and the theater, and they fought,” explained the Viscountess de Ribes in Paris recently. “Raymundo had great talent and tremendous imagination. He had the talent to be a stage director, but neither the health nor the courage to fight. He was very unrealistic. He didn’t know how to talk to people. He was too grand. What Raymundo is is a total aesthete, not an intellectual. He wanted to live around beautiful things. He was very generous and gave beautiful presents. Even the smallest gift he ever gave me was perfect, absolutely perfect,” she said. Another friend of de Larrain’s said, “Raymundo had more taste and knowledge of dancing than anyone. His problem was that he was unprofessional. He couldn’t get along with people. He had no discipline over himself.” When the Marquesa de Cuevas decided in 1962 not to underwrite the ballet company any longer, it was disbanded. Then, under the sponsorship of the Viscountess de Ribes, de Larrain formed his own ballet company. He began by producing and directingCinderella, in which he featured Geraldine Chaplin in a modest but much publicized role. The Viscountess, however, couldn’t afford for long to underwrite a ballet company, and withdrew after two years. Raymundo de Larrain then took to photographing celebrities for Vogue, Town & Country, and Life. His friends say that he had one obsession: to “make it” in the eyes of his family back in Chile. He mailed every newspaper clipping about himself to his mother, for whom, de Ribes says, “he had a passion.”

For years Margaret de Cuevas’s physical appearance had been deteriorating. Never the slightest bit interested in fashion or style, she began to assume the look of what has been described to me by some as a millionairess bag lady and by others as the Madwoman of Chaillot. “Before Fellini she was Fellini,” said Count Vega del Ren about her, but other assessments were less romantic. Her nails were uncared for. Her teeth were in a deplorable state. She had knee problems that gave her difficulty in walking. She covered her face with a white paste and white powder, and she blackened her eyes in an eccentric way that made people think she had put her thumb and fingers in a full ashtray and rubbed them around her eyes. Her hair was dyed black with reddish tinges, and around her head she always wore a black net scarf, which she tied beneath her chin. She wrapped handkerchiefs and ribbons around her wrists to hide her diamonds, and her black dresses were frequently stained with food and spilled white powder and held together with safety pins. For shoes she wore either sneakers or a pair of pink polyester bedroom slippers, which were very often on the wrong feet. Her lateness had reached a point where dinner guests would sit for several hours waiting for her to make an appearance, while Marcel, her butler of forty-five years, would pass them five or six times, carrying a martini on a silver tray to the marquesa’s room. “She drank much too much for an old lady,” one of her frequent guests told me. Finally her arrival for dinner would be heralded by the barking of her Pekingese dogs, and she would enter the dining room preceded by her favorite of them, Happy, who had a twisted neck and a glass eye and walked with a limp as the result of a stroke.

Her behavior also was increasingly eccentric. In her bedroom she had ten radios sitting on tables and chests of drawers. Each radio was set to a different music station—country-and-western, rock ’n’ roll, classical—and when she wanted to hear music she would ring for Marcel and point to the radio she wished him to turn on. For years she paid for rooms at the Westbury Hotel for a group of White Russians she had taken under her wing.

In the meantime Jan de Vroom had grown increasingly alcoholic and pill-dependant. “If someone’s eyes are dilated, does that mean they’re taking drugs?” Margaret asked a friend of de Vroom’s. “I’ve been too kind to him. I’ve spoiled him.” Young men—mostly hustlers and drug dealers—paraded in and out of his apartment at all hours of the day and night. In 1973 two hustlers, whom he knew, rang the bell of his New York apartment. On a previous visit they had asked him for a loan of $2,000, and he had refused. When de Vroom answered the bell, they sent up a thug to frighten him and demand money again. Jan de Vroom, in keeping with his character, aggravated the thug and incited him to rage. A French houseguest found his body: his throat had been cut, and he had been stabbed over and over again. Although he was known to be the person closest to Margaret de Cuevas at that time in her life, her name was not brought into any of the lurid accounts of his murder in the tabloid papers. De Vroom’s body, covered from the chin down to conceal his slit throat, lay in an open casket in the Westbury Room of the Frank E. Campbell Funeral Chapel at Madison Avenue and Eighty-first Street. Except for a few of the curious, there were no visitors. A little-known fact of the sordid situation was that, through the intercession of Margaret de Cuevas, the body was laid to rest in the Rockefeller cemetery in Pocantico Hills, the family estate, although subsequently it was shipped to Holland. The killers were caught and tried. There was no public outcry over the unsavory killing, and they received brief sentences. It is said that one of them still frequents the bars in New York.

Into this void in the life of the Marquesa Margaret de Cuevas moved Raymundo de Larrain. People meeting Margaret de Cuevas for the first time at this point were inclined to think that the cultivated lady was not intelligent, because she was unable to converse in the way people in society converse, and they suspected that she might be combining sedatives and drink. The same people are uniform in their praise of Raymundo de Larrain during this time. For parties at her house in New York, Raymundo would invite the guests and order the food and arrange the flowers, in much the same way that her late husband had during their marriage, and no one would argue the point that Raymundo surrounded her with a better crowd of people than Jan de Vroom ever had. He would choreograph a steady stream of handpicked guests to Margaret’s side during the evening. “ ‘Go and sit with Tante Margaret and talk with her, and I will send someone over in ten minutes to relieve you,’ ” a frequent guest told me he used to say. “He was lovely to her.” Another view of Raymundo at this time came from a New York lady who also visited the house: “He was so talented, Raymundo. Such a sense of fantasy. But he got sidetracked into moneygrubbing.” Whatever the interpretation, Margaret de Cuevas and Raymundo became the Harold and Maude of the Upper East Side and Palm Beach. Bessie de Cuevas, in her affidavit, acknowledges that “Raymundo was always attentive and extremely helpful to my mother, particularly in her social life, which consisted almost exclusively of gatherings and entertainments at her various residences.”

On April 25, 1977, at the oceanfront estate of Mr. and Mrs. Wilson C. Lucom in Palm Beach, the Marquesa Margaret de Cuevas, then eighty years old, married Raymundo de Larrain, then forty-two, in a hastily arranged surprise ceremony. The wedding was such a closely guarded secret that Margaret de Cuevas’s children, Bessie and John, did not know of it until they read about it in Suzy’s column in the New York Daily News. Bessie de Cuevas’s friends say that she felt betrayed by Raymundo because he had not told her of his plans to marry her mother. Among the prominent guests present at the wedding were Rose Kennedy, Mrs. Winston Guest, and Mary Sanford, known as the queen of Palm Beach, who that night gave the newlyweds a wedding reception at her estate. In her affidavit Bessie de Cuevas states, “I had visited with my mother at some length at her home in New York just about two months before. She was clearly aging but we talked along quite well about personal and family things. She said she would be leaving soon to spend some time at her home in Florida. She did not in any way suggest that she was considering getting married. After I read the article, I called her at once in Florida. She could only speak briefly and seemed vague. I assured her that of course my brother John and I wanted anything that would make her comfortable and happy, but why, I asked, did she do it this way. Her reply was simply, ‘It just happened.’ ”

Wilson C. Lucom, the host of the wedding, was also married to an older woman, the since deceased Willys-Overland automobile heiress Virginia Willys. Lucom, who had trained as a lawyer, never practiced law, but had served on the staff of the law secretary of state Edward Stettinius. Shortly after the wedding, in response to an inquiry from the Rockefeller family, he sent a Mailgram to John D. Rockefeller III, the first cousin of Margaret Strong de Cuevas de Larrain, stating his position as the representative of the marquesa and now of de Larrain. “Do not worry about her or be concerned about any rumors you may have heard,” the Mailgram read. “She was married at our house with my wife and myself as witnesses. It was a solemn ceremony, and she was highly competent and knew precisely that she was being married and did so of her own free will being of sound mind.” Bessie de Cuevas says in her affidavit, “I had never met or heard my mother speak of Mr. Lucom.”

For the wedding, Raymundo told friends, he gave his bride a wheelchair and new teeth. He also supervised a transformation of her appearance. “You must understand this: Raymundo cleaned Margaret up. Why, her nails were manicured for the first time in years.” He got rid of the white makeup and blackened eyes, and he supervised her hair, nails, cosmetics, and dress. “Margaret was never better cared for” is a remark made over and over about her after her marriage. De Larrain would invite people to lunch or for drinks and wheel her out to greet her guests; he basked in the compliments paid to his wife on her new appearance. However, lawyers for the Chase Manhattan Bank, which represents Bessie and John de Cuevas’s interests, told me that the two health-care professionals who cared for the marquesa at different times in 1980 and 1982 recalled that de Larrain did not spend much time with his wife, and that she would often ask about him. But when attention was paid by him, it would be lavish; he would send roses in great quantity or do her makeup. Since he had arranged it so that no one would become close to his wife, “she was particularly vulnerable to such displays of charm and affection.” During her second marriage, she became known as Margaret Rockefeller de Larrain. Although this was illustrious-sounding, it was incorrect, for it implied that she was born Margaret Rockefeller rather than Margaret Strong. “The snobbishness and enhancement were de Larrain’s,” sniffed a friend of her daughter’s.

Shortly after the marriage, Sylvia de Cuevas, the then wife of John de Cuevas, took the marquesa’s two granddaughters to visit her in Palm Beach. She says she was stopped at the front door by an armed guard, who would not let them enter until permission was granted by Raymundo. Soon other changes began to take place. Old servants who had been with the marquesa for years, including her favorite, Marcel, were fired by de Larrain. Bessie de Cuevas claims in her affidavit that he accused them of stealing and other misdeeds. Long-term relationships with lawyers and accountants were severed. Copies of correspondence to the marquesa from Richard Weldon, her lawyer for many years, reflect that her directives to them were so unlike her usual method of communication that they questioned the authority of the letters. Shortly thereafter both men were replaced.

Another longtime secretary, Lillian Grappone, told Bessie de Cuevas that her mother had complained of the fact that there were constantly new faces around her. During this period the many houses of the marquesa were sold or given to charity, among them her two houses on East Sixty-eighth Street in New York, which had always been her favorite as well as her principal residence. Bessie de Cuevas claims in her affidavit that her mother sometimes could not recall signing anything to effect the transfer of these houses. At other times she would talk as if she could get them back. On one occasion she acknowledged having signed away the houses but said she had been talked into it at a time when she was not feeling well. Her father’s villa in Fiesole, where she had grown up, was given to Georgetown University. The house in Cannes was given to Bessie and John de Cuevas. Her official residence was moved from New York to Florida, but she was moved out of her house of many years on El Bravo Way in Palm Beach to a condominium on South Ocean Boulevard. Several people who visited her at the condominium said that she seemed confused as to why she should be living there instead of in her own house. Other friends explain the move as a practical one: the house on El Bravo Way was an old Spanish-style one on several floors and many levels, badly in need of repair, and for an invalid in a wheelchair life was simpler in the one-floor apartment.

During this period the financial affairs of the marquesa were handled more and more by Wilson C. Lucom, the host at the wedding. Bessie de Cuevas states in her affidavit, “I think my mother’s belief that Lucom would safeguard her interests against de Larrain only highlights her lack of appreciation for the reality of her circumstances.” Bessie de Cuevas tells of an occasion when she visited her mother at the Palm Beach condominium and Lucom “taunted” her by boasting that he and de Larrain were drinking “Rockefeller champagne.” “My mother’s total dependence on de Larrain is reflected in an explanation she gave for why she did not accompany de Larrain to Paris on a trip he made concerning her holdings there. De Larrain told her no American carrier flew to Paris any longer, and since my mother did not care for Air France, it was best for her not to go. Plainly, my mother had lost any independent touch with the real world.”

Access to her mother became more and more difficult for Bessie de Cuevas. When she called, she was told her mother could not come to the telephone. Some friends who visited the marquesa say that she would complain that she never heard from her daughter. Others say that messages left by Bessie were never given to her. In 1982 Raymundo de Larrain took his wife out of the country, and they began what lawyers representing the de Cuevases’ interests call an “itinerant existence.” She never returned. They went first to Switzerland, then to Chile, where he was from and where they had built a house, and finally to Madrid, where de Larrain was made the cultural attaché at the Chilean Embassy. There Margaret died in a hotel room in 1985. Bessie de Cuevas saw her mother for the last time a few weeks before she died. Neither Bessie nor her brother has any idea where she is buried.

Certainly there was trouble between the Rockefeller family and the newlywed de Larrains from the time of the marriage. After the change of residence from New York to Florida, David Rockefeller urged his cousin to donate her two town houses at 52 and 54 East Sixty-eighth Street to an institution supported by the Rockefeller family called the Center for Inter-American Relations. The appraisal of the two houses was arranged by David Rockefeller, and the appraiser had been in the employ of the Rockefellers for years. He evaluated the two houses at $725,000. Subsequently Margaret de Larrain was distressed to hear that these properties, which she had donated to the Center for Inter-American Relations, were later sold to another favorite Rockefeller forum, the Council on Foreign Relations, for more than twice the amount of money they had been appraised at.

Raymundo de Larrain, in his affidavit for the probate proceedings, says that his wife’s male Rockefeller cousins discriminated against the females of the family. “Not only did her cousin-trustee [John D. Rockefeller III] want to dominate her life and tell her how to spend her trust income, but wanted also to dictate and approve how she spent her non-trust personal principal and income. My wife strongly resented their intrusion in her personal life.… Her position was that her money was hers outright, not part of her trust, and that she and she alone was to decide how she spent it or what gifts she—not they—would make.” Late in the affidavit, de Larrain says that his wife’s trustees “wanted her to give virtually all her personal wealth away to her children long before she even thought of dying. Then they would control her through their control of her trust income.”

De Larrain said that his wife had been generous with her two children, but that they were not satisfied with her gifts of millions to them. “They wanted more and more.” After giving her children more than $7 million, she refused to transfer her personal wealth to them. Even after her gift of $7 million, he claimed, the trustees cut her trust income. “My wife was shocked and distressed at the unjust and cruel and illegal actions of the cousin-trustees in pressuring her to give millions to her children and then breaking their agreement not to cut her trust income. This further alienated her from her family. She felt cheated and a victim of a plan by the family and the Chase Manhattan Bank.”

On February 21,1978, a year after her marriage, Margaret de Larrain, at age eighty-one, revoked all prior wills and codicils executed by her. “I have personally destroyed the original wills in my possession, namely, two original wills dated February 14, 1941, and an original will dated April 26, 1950, and an original will dated May 14, 1956, and an original will dated May 17,1968, and an original will dated June 11, 1968.” Thereafter, Margaret de Larrain added two codicils to a new will of November 20, 1980. In the first, she stated that she had already transferred her fortune to her husband, and she made him the sole beneficiary and sole personal representative of her estate. In the second, she expressed her specific wish that her only two children and two grandchildren receive nothing. De Larrain ended his affidavit with this statement: “There is also abundant testimony that my wife was entirely competent when she later added the two codicils which expressed that she wanted to give the property to me, her husband. She did this because her children neglected her and she had provided abundantly for them in her lifetime by giving them approximately $7 million in gifts.”

It might be added that Margaret’s will did not set a precedent in the stodgy Rockefeller family. Her mother’s sister Edith Rockefeller McCormick, who divorced her husband, Henry Fowler McCormick, heir to the International Harvester fortune, and then engaged in a series of flamboyant affairs with male secretaries which caused her father great embarrassment, in 1932 bequeathed half of her fortune to a Swiss secretary.

Pending the upcoming court case, Raymundo de Larrain has dropped out of public view. When he is in Paris, he lives at the Meurice hotel, but even his closest friends there, including the Viscountess de Ribes, do not hear from him, and he has dropped completely out of the smart social life that he once pursued so vigorously. On encountering Hubert Faure, the first husband of Bessie de Cuevas, in the bar of the Meurice recently, he turned his back on him. In Madrid he stays sometimes at the Palace Hotel and sometimes at less well known ones. He has been seen dining alone in restaurants there. Sometimes he nods to former acquaintances, but he makes no attempt to renew friendships. He has also been seen in Rabat and Lausanne. In the past year he has made two substantial gifts to charity. He gave a check for $500,000 to Georgetown University to supplement the gift of his late wife’s father’s villa in Fiesole to Georgetown. “You have to figure that if Raymundo gave a million dollars to the Spanish Institute before the trial, he must have already squirreled away at least $10 million,” said a dubious Raymundo follower in Paris recently.

This is not a sad story. The deprived will not go hungry. If the courts are able to ascertain what happened to Margaret Strong de Cuevas de Larrain’s fortune in the years of her marriage and to decide on an equitable distribution of her wealth, already rich people will get richer. As a woman friend of Raymundo de Larrain’s said to me recently, “Raymundo will be bad in court, nervous and insecure. If there’s a jury, the jury won’t like him.” She thought a bit and then added, “It’s only going to end up wrong. If you don’t behave correctly, nothing turns out well. I mean, would you like to fight the Rockefellers, darling?”

Dominick Dunne is a best-selling author and special correspondent for Vanity Fair. His diary is a mainstay of the magazine.




Freedom Rider: Obama, Mandela and Dangerous Mythology

BARsouthafrica_greets_obama

By BAR Editor & Senior Columnist Margaret Kimberley

The Obamas’ visit to South Africa, for people of color on both sides of the Atlantic, is heavy on symbolism and photo-ops, but devoid of any substance for those who hunger and thirst for justice. The ANC won the flag at the end of apartheid, but South Africa’s white elite kept the land and the money, after allowing a few well-connected black faces into high places.

 

Let the world never forget that —paying in blood—it was little revolutionary Cuba that broke the back of the Apartheid regime. [/pullquote]

That history of struggle and the group identity it creates have not been limited to the American experience. The decades long fight against the racist apartheid system in South Africa was supported by millions of people in this country too. Jim Crow was America’s own apartheid. It is only logical that the sight of black people being treated cruelly in the name of white supremacy would elicit feelings of affinity in this country and around the world.

Nelson Mandela’s release from 27 years of imprisonment and his subsequent election as president created a surge of pride and joy among black people everywhere. Unfortunately we did not truly understand what we were witnessing. These events came about as a result of forces unacknowledged in America and they also came with a very high price.

Cuban artillery at Cuito Canevale.

Cuban artillery at Cuito Canevale.

The name of the Angolan town Cuito Cuanavale [5] means little to all but a handful of Americans but it lies at the heart of the story of apartheid’s end. At Cuito Cuanavale in 1988 Cuban troops defeated the South African army and in so doing sealed apartheid’s fate.

It is important to know how apartheid ended, lest useless stories about a miraculously changed system and a peaceful grandfatherly figure confuse us and warp our consciousness. Mandela was freed because of armed struggle and not out of benevolence. He was also freed because the African National Congress miscalculated and made concessions which have since resulted in terrible poverty and powerlessness for black people in South Africa. By their own admission, some of his comrades [6] concede that they were unprepared for the determination of the white majority to hold the purse strings even as they gave up political power.

Now the masses of black South Africans are as poor as they were during the time of political terror. The Sharpeville massacre [7] of 1960 which galvanized the world against South Africa was repeated in 2012 when 34 striking miners were killed by police at Marikana. The Marikana massacre [8] made a mockery of the hope which millions of people had for the ANC and its political success.

Obama’s recent visit to South Africa when the 94 year old Mandela was hospitalized created a golden opportunity for analysis and a questioning of long held assumptions about both men but the irrefutable fact is this. The personal triumphs of these two individuals have not translated into success for black people in either of their countries.

It isn’t true that black people benefit from the political success of certain individuals..”

The victory of international finance capital wreaks havoc on both sides of the Atlantic ocean. In the U.S. black people have reached their political and economic low point during the Obama years. The gains won 50 years ago have been reversed while unemployment, mass incarceration, and Obama supported austerity measures have all conspired to undo the progress which was so dearly paid for.

Cuban women volunteers in Angola.

Cuban women volunteers in Angola.

Obama’s visit to Africa as Mandela lay critically ill brought very sincere but very deeply misled people to remember all of the wrong things. It isn’t true that black people benefit from the political success of certain individuals. It isn’t true that role models undo systemic cruelty or that racism ends because of their presence or that white people see or treat the masses of black people any differently when one black person reaches a high office.

The maudlin sentiment was all built on lies. Mandela fought the good fight for many years and is worthy of respect for that reason alone. But his passing should be a moment to reflect on his mistakes and on how they can be avoided by people struggling to break free from injustice. Obama’s career is a story of ambition and high cynicism which met opportunity. There is little to learn from his story except how to spot the next evil doer following in his footsteps.

It is high time that myths were called what they are. They are stories which may help explain our feelings but they are stories nonetheless and they do us no good.

Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as athttp://freedomrider.blogspot.com. [9] Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

Listen to us on the Black Talk Radio Network at www.blacktalkradionetwork.com

Source URL: http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/freedom-rider-obama-mandela-and-dangerous-mythology

Links:
[1] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/africa/south-africa
[2] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/africa/nelson-mandela
[3] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/africa/cuba-africa
[4] http://www.blackagendareport.com/sites/www.blackagendareport.com/files/southafrica_greets_obama.jpg
[5] http://blackagendareport.com/content/march-23-anniversary-beginning-apartheids-end-battle-cuito-cuanavale
[6] http://blackagendareport.com/content/how-ancs-faustian-pact-sold-out-south-africas-poorest
[7] http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/sharpeville-massacre-21-march-1960
[8] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/africa/marikana-massacre
[9] http://freedomrider.blogspot.com/
[10] http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blackagendareport.com%2Fcontent%2Ffreedom-rider-obama-mandela-and-dangerous-mythology&linkname=Freedom%20Rider%3A%20Obama%2C%20Mandela%20and%20Dangerous%20Mythology

ADDENDUM

Anticommunist Cubans have tried to this day to stain and muddle the memory of Cuba’s honorable and generous intervention in Angola, Namibia and South Africa against the Apartheid regime and colonialism/imperialism in general.

Below, in Spanish, a note that sums up the truth about the Cuban international solidarity effort:

oswalt en septiembre 24, 2010 a las 6:27 PM dijo:

antes que todo disculpen mi español

Creo que están alejándose un poco del verdadero motivo de la guerra de Angola, que no fue por ningún interés de gloria ni de honor para cuba, ni para ninguno de los cubanos, ni con ánimos de lucro y saqueo como ocurre en las guerras actuales, lo único que los cubanos trajeron de Angola fue, el amor incondicional de su pueblo y los cadáveres de sus muertos, en primer lugar fue para la liberación definitiva de angola y la desaparicion de una vez y por todas del regimen del Apartheid de las tierras africanas, los mas de 300 000 hombres y mujeres cubanas que pasaron por angola lo hicieron de forma voluntaria, incluyendo los oficiales del ejercito cubano, fue por el basico principo de solidaridad huma hacia un pueblo que lucha por su libertad, de esos mas de 2000 muertos cubanos se encontraban de todos los sectores sociales, murieron desde generales( como Raul Diaz Arguelles) y coroneles cubanos hasta sus propios hijos, los hijos del che y de otros comandantes del ejercito rebelde participaron en esa lucha, tanto es así que el hoy coronel de los servicios de inteligencia cubanos Alejandro Castro Espín hijo Vilma Espin Presidenta de la FMC y héroe de la República de cuba y del actual presidente y general de ejercito Raul Castro perdió un ojo en los combates de Luanda, creo sencillamente que han estado leyendo la historia de los mal intencionados, en cuanto a la educación te puedo asegurar que todos los que pelearon en Angola eran ya bachilleres ya que la educación en Cuba es gratuita y obligatoria.

Responder
(Part of a long discussion in the blog, La Ultima Guerra, dominated unfortunately by anti-Castro voices..)



Federico Fellini – Author of Cinema

By Gaither Stewart, TGP

fellini2

Federico Fellini’s favorite interview technique was to explain while denying he was explaining, or not explaining anything while claiming he was explaining all. The symbolist poet – film director Fellini was a mixture of denial and irony, wile and innocence. Half – truths and half – falsehoods, interwoven with deceptive under-statements, were his terrain.

In one of Fellini’s rare interviews with a small group of journalists toward the end of his life the film author resorted to his whole bag of tricks: “For forty years I’ve been trying to explain something I can’t explain. I hear only questions I can’t answer. Usually only a character, or a shadow of a memory, or even a form of expression, has offered me a saving hand. But I myself am impotent and defenseless.

“The truth is, with my camera I have only sketched a series of scribblings, traced out images, profiles, and pornographic designs that usually no one asked me to explain.”

It was difficult to ask him what this scene or that sequence or those words meant. Few journalists ever risked it. The reality is that watching a Fellini film was like walking along the narrow edge of an abyss during an earthquake. You grasp for meanings.

Fellini’s explanations were always useless as a means to understanding his cinema—because by nature he was a liar. He had to be. Whatever information or interpretation about one film or the other was wrested, wrenched or wrung from its symbolist author was necessarily a lie. One of the few truths he ever uttered in an interview was his admission that day I was present in his famous Studio number 5 in Rome’s Cinecittá studios: “I’m always autobiographical, even if I’m telling the story of the life of a fish.”

But everyone present knew that already.

That day in his studio, toward the end of his life, the Maestro -as film director Federico Fellini [ Rimini, 1920 – Rome, 1993] was popularly called – was trying not to answer a question or to explain anything about his old – always new, Oscar winning film, AMARCORD [1973]. Set in his native Rimini, the seaside resort on the Adriatic Sea, the film AMARCORD—the word means “I remember” in his native dialect and had to be explained also to the Italian public—was in a sense Fellini’s spiritual return home after the many years of his Rome films.

Fellini’s explanation of the significance of that poetry was this: “AMARCORD is a kind of consonance, a harmony that intrigues, that seduces, like the alluring name of an aperitif. I only wanted to portray a real Italian province.”

For Fellini the dreamer, the wanderer and follower of circuses, the observer of life, and caricaturist, the town of Rimini on the Adriatic Sea was the point of departure and a subtle point of reference for all his cinematographic works—for his “scribblings, images, profiles, and pornographic designs,” as he falsely modestly defined his films. The seashore resort of Rimini was the base of his autobiography, the base of all the Felliniana.

 fellini9

Fellini lovers recall with delight the image of the Rimini boys dancing on the wide steps of the great seashore hotel on a dark winter’s night. Much more than the thousands of discos along its coastline, that image marks indelibly the town of Rimini. The Grand Hotel today stands there almost silently, an elegant symbol of times past, which is what Fellini’s cinema, his poetry, is all about: “memories,” he liked to say.

At the exclusive north end of Myrtle Beach – like Rimini, a monument to the Rimini Belle Époque, the Grand Hotel in Fellini’s time expressed the province’s search for the beautiful world far away. Rome was far away. Europe was distant. Once a meeting place for the European aristocracy, the Grand became a hotel for politicians, artists, and writers, where in its Belle Epoch atmosphere waiters still today speak French to distinguished English guests.

I dwell on Rimini and the Grand Hotel because it conditioned the boy and the youth, Federico. It conditioned Fellini’s art, his view of life. His cinema is rich in images of the epoch symbolized by the Grand Hotel, where the famous film director always stayed on his frequent visits. The manager of the Grand once told me that Fellini changed personalities in Rimini, in contrast to his boisterous Rome image: “Here he is a quiet guest, a simple man, with no pretensions, no scandals.”

For the boy Federico, the Grand Hotel was a ray of light from the world beyond the railroad tracks, in contrast to the boredom of the provinces so isolated in those days. Later, all of his principle film characters were to be immersed in a desolate interior solitude.

“We were fourteen furious boys who couldn’t bear any restrictions,” Fellini reluctantly recalled in the Cinecittá interview. “Nothing was sacred. We teased the workers, we broke into the monastery at dawn to wake up the monks by squirting water on the cell doors. At night we tormented couples hidden behind the boats on the beach. Once we stole the clock from the Hotel Kursal. [That episode was used in Fellini’s first major film, I VITELLONI, 1953].

Just across the rail tracks from the Grand lies the 2,300 year old town of Rimini—the streets and piazzas of Fellini’s cinema. It’s a Roman town with amphitheater and Augustus’ Triumphant Arch of 27 B.C. But superimposed on the antiquity is Fellini’s Medieval – Renaissance town where Brunelleschi worked and where stands the Liceo Classico made famous by Fellini’s films. The narrow strip of land between the sea and the north – south railroad tracks was a beacon to Rimini youth, a place where in the night they felt physically the passing of great express trains and ocean liners. The contrast between the provincial town on one side of the tracks and the wide world on the other became the center of Fellini’s art.

The scene in AMARCORD of the boys of the provinces dancing together the old – fashioned dance, slowly and silently, on the steps of the Grand Hotel, and the passing in the night fog of the mysterious ship, the REX, underlines the contrast. It is the reality of their yearning and the symbolism of the REX in the night—in the distance, intangible and evanescent.

Is Fellini’s art cinema, plastic art, or symbolist poetry? The answer, I believe, is all three.

 

While AMARCORD was his return home, Fellini lovers will appreciate that I VITELLONI marked Fellini’s spiritual departure from his hometown to Rome. The word of the title meaning “fat calves” refers to the sons of provincial bourgeois families who didn’t work and lived off their fathers. In the latter film, the Maestro claimed he depicted the reality of life in the Rimini of that period. So to speak! For reality for Fellini was a relative term. The film that won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival that year was an artistic adieu to Rimini, which liberated him to set out for other worlds. To Rome, his adopted city.

Yet, Federico Fellini was no Thomas Wolfe. He departed but had no difficulty returning. His friend, Alberto Moravia, wrote that, “Fellini’s cinema had Rome as its protagonist rather than as its background and setting.” For Moravia, one of Italy’s major writers and an ardent film critic, Fellini’s Rome is “a city of imagination, composed of corporeal and Baroque fantasy, a place to give vent to a certain sentiment of life.”

Moravia noted however that “when Fellini speaks of his native Rimini he becomes sober and delicate.”

During the intervening years between his physical departure – escape from Rimini and the provinces in 1939—recorded in I VITELLONI and filmed in Rimini—and his spiritual return there in 1973 with his film masterpiece, AMARCORD, Fellini never really deserted the complex town – image on the Adriatic Sea. The Rimini images created by the Roman – Medieval vestiges on one hand and the typical provinces and the world of tourism on the other, remained in his blood.

Therefore, the mature Fellini, the artist and magical recorder of people and things, searching for outlets for his world of fantasy within his autobiography, found Rimini again with such ease and delicacy.

 

In no other western country more than in Italy is more apt the expression, “No one is a prophet in his own country.” Especially in the case of Federico Fellini, who was less admired and less understood in realistic Italy than abroad. Many Italians today say frankly, “I never liked Fellini. I don’t understand him.”

Though that is blasphemy among cinema lovers in France or the United States, also many cinema critics and festival juries never understood his art—though they recognized it as the work of genius. Therefore all his Oscars! Because of his genius of expressive ambiguity the Maestro so influenced his contemporaries and the subsequent generation of filmmakers that today, to be called “Fellinian”, is the highest accolade. Perhaps no other filmmaker ever won more awards and received more acclamation and recognition in his own time for works so few people could comprehend.

Fellini himself—liar, master of understatement and denial, weaver of dreams and fantasy—said about his own films, “I don’t understand them either. I don’t seem capable of even suggesting an interpretation.”

Ennio Flaiano, the film critic and sometime Fellini collaborator, viewed Fellini’s work as “a search for himself”—rare but not unheard of among film makers. “His themes are the conflict between life and dream, the incommunicability among human beings, and rejected love. His merit is that he presents the sum total of good and evil, of fall and redemption.”

These should not be understood as simply hollow words. If one keeps Flaiano’s diagnosis in mind—life and dream, incommunicability, unreturned love, good and evil, and redemption of man—and if one recalls one is dealing with a symbolist poet and weaver of dreams and not just another film director, one can comfortably walk into Blockbuster and take home confidently 8 ½ [Otto e Mezzo], put it in the video, and sit down and appreciate Fellini’s most difficult film.

The most Fellini himself ever admitted about his vast work—The White Sheik, I Vitelloni, La Strada, Nights of Cabiria, La Dolce Vita, Satyricon, Giulietta of the Spirits, Casanova, Amarcord, Ginger and Fred, The Interview, and all the others—was this: “I put myself in front of a mirror only in 8 ½. The rest is memories.”

Unfortunately, his own story of the autobiography of a fish belied that admission, too.

Gaither Stewart, Rome
November, 2001

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Gaither Stewart is The Greanville Post and Cyrano’s Journal Today’s European correspondent. His latest novel is Lily Pad Roll, volume 2 of his Europe Trilogy (Punto Press). 

 




The journalistic education of Gabriel García Márquez

From our archives: Articles you should have read the first time around but missed.
Second Read
[Originally published January 14, 2010]

marquez460

The Hack

By Miles Corwin, Columbia Journalism Review

In 1955, eight crew members of a Colombian naval destroyer in the Caribbean were swept overboard by a giant wave. Luis Alejandro Velasco, a sailor who spent ten days on a life raft without food or water, was the only survivor. The editor of the Colombian newspaper El Espectador assigned the story to a twenty-seven-year-old reporter who had been dabbling in fiction and had a reputation as a gifted feature writer: Gabriel García Márquez.

The young journalist quickly uncovered a military scandal. As his fourteen-part series revealed, the sailors owed their deaths not to a storm, as Colombia’s military dictatorship had claimed, but to naval negligence. The decks of the Caldas had been stacked high with television sets, washing machines, and refrigerators purchased in the U.S. These appliances, which were being ferried to Colombia against military regulations, had caused the ship to list dangerously. And because the Caldas was so overloaded, it was unable to maneuver and rescue the sailors.

In addition, the life rafts on board were too small and carried no supplies, and the Navy called off the search for survivors after only four days.

By the time the series ended, El Espectador’s circulation had almost doubled. The public always likes an exposé, but what made the stories so popular was not simply the explosive revelations of military incompetence. García Márquez had managed to transform Velasco’s account into a narrative so dramatic and compelling that readers lined up in front of the newspaper’s offices, waiting to buy copies.

After the series ran, the government denied that the destroyer had been loaded with contraband merchandise. García Márquez turned up the investigative heat: he tracked down crewmen who owned cameras and purchased their photographs from the voyage, in which the illicit cargo, with factory labels, could be easily seen.

The series marked a turning point in García Márquez’s life and writing career. The government was so incensed that the newspaper’s editors, who feared for the young reporter’s safety, sent him to Paris as its foreign correspondent. A few months later the government shut El Espectador down. The disappearance of his meal ticket forced García Márquez into the role of an itinerant journalist who sold freelance stories to pay the bills—and, crucially, continued to write fiction.

The relatively spare prose of the Velasco series bears little resemblance to the poetic, multilayered, sometimes hallucinatory language that would mark García Márquez’s maturity as a novelist. Still, the articles—which were published in book form as The Story of A Shipwrecked Sailor in 1970, and translated into English sixteen years later—represent a milestone in his literary evolution. “This is where his gifted storytelling emerges,” says Raymond Williams, a professor of Latin American literature at the University of California, Riverside, who has written two books about the author. Prior to the series, he suggests, García Márquez had been writing somewhat amateurish short stories. Now, says Williams, he was rising to the challenge of constructing a lengthy narrative: “The ability he has to maintain a level of suspense throughout is something that later became a powerful element of his novels.”

In fact, it was the reporter’s capacity to anatomize human behavior—rather than simply pass along the facts—that first drew García Márquez to the newsroom. He was a young law student with little interest in journalism when an acquaintance named Elvira Mendoza, who edited the women’s section of a Bogotá newspaper, was assigned to interview the Argentinean actress Berta Singerman. The diva was so arrogant and supercilious that she refused to answer any questions. Finally, her husband intervened and salvaged the interview.

For García Márquez, this was a revelation about the possibilities of journalism. As he wrote in his autobiography, Living to Tell the Tale, which appeared in English in 2003:

Elvira did not write the dialogue she had foreseen, based on the diva’s responses, but instead wrote an article about her difficulties with Berta Singerman. She took advantage of the providential intervention of the husband and turned him into the real protagonist of the meeting . . . . The sangfroid and ingenuity with which Elvira . . . used Singerman’s foolishness to reveal her true personality set me to thinking for the first time about the possibilities of journalism, not as a primary source of information but as much more: a literary genre. Before many years passed I would prove this in my own flesh, until I came to believe, as I believe today more than ever, that the novel and journalism are children of the same mother . . . . Elvira’s article made me aware of the reporter I carried sleeping in my heart and I resolved to wake him. I began to read newspapers in a different way.

García Márquez ended up leaving law school and working for a series of Colombian newspapers. He spent most of his early career writing movie reviews, human-interest stories, and a daily, unsigned column he shared with other reporters that resembled The New Yorker’s “Talk of the Town”—a common feature of South American newspapers. Yet he aspired to cover more substantive issues, including politics and government corruption, and to pursue investigative projects.

When he was first hired at El Espectador, García Márquez hoped to impress an editor by the name of Jose Salgar. “It seems to me that Salgar had his eye on me to be a reporter,” he later recounted in his autobiography, “while the others had relegated me to films, editorials, and cultural matters because I had always been designated a short-story writer. But my dream was to be a reporter . . . and I knew that Salgar was the best teacher.” The editor taught him to how to communicate his ideas clearly and pare down his florid prose. Every time Salgar read one of García Márquez’s stories, he made “the strenuous gesture of forcing a cork out of a bottle and said, ‘Wring the neck of the swan.’ ”

Soon, García Márquez was assigned the kinds of projects he had dreamed of pursuing. He wrote numerous in-depth stories, including pieces about the corruption surrounding the construction of a port on the Caribbean coast, the neglect of war veterans by the government, and landslides that killed dozens of people in a slum neighborhood. He specialized in what Latin American newspapers called the refrito (“refried”): a detailed reconstruction of a dramatic news event, published weeks or months later with élan and great narrative skill. And then something new landed on his desk: the Velasco series.

After Luis Alejandro Velasco washed ashore, he was lionized by the press, decorated by the Colombian president, and became a national hero. García Márquez thought it was absurd the way the government held up Velasco as an example of patriotic morality. What’s more, he believed the sailor had sold out in a most unseemly manner—advertising the brand of watch he wore at sea (because it had not stopped) and the shoes on his feet (because they were too sturdy for him to tear apart and eat during his ordeal).

A month after his rescue, Velasco walked into El Espectador’s newsroom and offered the exclusive rights to his story. He had already told his tale to innumerable reporters as well as government officials, and the staff doubted he had anything new to add to the record. “We sent him away,” García Márquez recalls in his autobiography. “But on a hunch, [Salgar] caught up with him on the stairway, accepted the deal, and placed him in my hands. It was as if he had given me a time bomb.”

At first, though, García Márquez declined the assignment. He believed the story was not only a “dead fish,” as he later wrote, but “a rotten one”—which is to say, both dated and dubious. Salgar persisted. “I informed him,” García Márquez recounts, “that I would write the article out of obedience as his employee but would not put my name to it. Without having thought about it first, this was a fortuitous but on-target determination regarding the story, for it obliged me to tell it in the first-person voice of the protagonist.”

García Márquez proved the newspaper adage that there can’t be great writing without great reporting. Over the course of twenty consecutive days, he interviewed Velasco for six hours each day. To make sure his subject was telling the truth, he frequently interjected trick questions, hoping to expose any contradictions in Velasco’s tale. “I sincerely believe that interviewing is a kind of fictional genre and that it must be regarded in this light,” García Márquez wrote after his interviews with the sailor. He added:

The majority of journalists let the tape recorder do the work, and they think that they are respecting the wishes of the person they are interviewing by retranscribing word for word what he says. They do not realize that this work method is really quite disrespectful: whenever someone speaks, he hesitates, goes off on tangents, does not finish his sentences, and he makes trifling remarks. For me the tape recorder must only be used to record material that the journalist will decide to use later on, that he will interpret and will choose to present in his own way. In this sense it is possible to interview someone in the same way that you write a novel or poetry.

After 120 hours, García Márquez had a detailed, comprehensive account of Velasco’s ordeal. The challenge was how to involve the reader in a saga that featured a single character who was alone for ten days, floating aimlessly in a small raft.

The answer was a steady heightening of dramatic tension. In the first few pages of the book, he notes that before the destroyer shipped out of Mobile, Alabama, Velasco and some of his shipmates watched The Caine Mutiny, foreshadowing the disaster to come. The best part of the movie, Velasco tells García Márquez, was the storm. And the sheer realism of the sequence inevitably made some of the crew uneasy: “I don’t mean to say that from that moment I began to anticipate the catastrophe,” Velasco says, “but I had never been so apprehensive before a voyage.”

Not overly subtle, perhaps, but certainly effective. García Márquez concludes each section with a Dickensian cliffhanger. He ends chapter two, for example, with a dramatic description that compels the reader onward:

I started to raise my arm to look at my watch, but at that moment I couldn’t see my arm, or my watch either. I didn’t see the wave . . . . I swam upward for one, two, three seconds. I tried to reach the surface. I needed air. I was suffocating . . . . A second later, about a hundred meters way, the ship surged up between the waves, gushing water from all sides like a submarine. It was only then that I realized I had fallen overboard.

The next chapter begins with Velasco alone in the middle of the ocean. While García Márquez keeps his language relatively spare—he was writing for a newspaper, after all—there are frequent glimmers of the great descriptive powers that would later animate his novels. “Soon the sky turned red, and I continued to search the horizon,” recalls Velasco (or at least Velasco being channeled by the young reporter). “Then it turned a deep violet as I kept watching. To one side of the life raft, like a yellow diamond in a wine-colored sky, the first star appeared, immobile and perfect.”

Throughout the sailor’s ordeal, García Márquez touches on themes that would consistently interest him for the rest of his career. In his early short stories, he had already explored the interior life of his characters, probing their dreams and sometimes surreal reveries. Yet these explorations felt anomalous—youthful stabs at insight without any real connection to the plot. In the Velasco series, he felt free to reconstruct his subject’s interior monologues, and for the first time, they were actually integral to the narrative. And when the sailor sees mirages, or converses with imaginary companions, or struggles with the distortions of time, these passages presage the author’s mature fiction.

Here, as he did later on, García Márquez also affirms his belief that narrative plays a significant role in people’s lives. When Velasco finally washes ashore, after ten days in the open sea, a man wearing a straw hat comes upon him, with a donkey and an emaciated dog in tow. García Márquez relates the exchange between the two:

“Help me,” I repeated desperately, worried that the man hadn’t understood me.

“What happened to you?” he asked in a friendly tone of voice.

When I heard him speak I realized that, more than thirst, hunger, and despair, what tormented me most was the need to tell someone what had happened to me.

Countless literary critics have written about how Ernest Hemingway’s prose emerged from his journalism. Scholars have looked for a similar stylistic genealogy in the case of García Márquez. There are, of course, major differences between the two: García Márquez’s language is more complex and poetic. Yet even his inimitable passages of magic realism are influenced by his years as a reporter, says Robert Sims, a professor of Spanish literature at Virginia Commonwealth University and the author of The First García Márquez: A Study of His Journalistic Writing from 1948 to 1955. The most surrealistic events are believable, Sims argues, because they are recounted in an objective, journalistic tone. And García Márquez first mastered this tone—in which magic always pays heed to realism—when he described Velasco’s ordeal. “It’s never melodramatic,” Sims says. “He never lets Velasco get overwrought or maudlin or sink into total despair. García Márquez always cuts it off before it reaches that point. The tone is even and neutral, just like in A Hundred Years of Solitude.”

Nor did he ever forget the reporter’s obligation to hook readers with the very first sentence. Some of García Márquez’s early newspaper leads read like fiction, and point directly to his later work. For example, he wrote a series for El Espectador about a swampy, disease-ridden area of Colombia near the coast, and opened with a lead guaranteed to intrigue any reader: “Several years ago a ghostly, glassy-looking man, with a big stomach as taut as a drum, came to a doctor’s office in the city. He said, ‘Doctor, I have come to have you remove a monkey that was put in my belly.’ ”

The reverse is true as well. In his novels and short stories, he often opens with indelible lines about death, many of which read like dramatic newspaper leads. Here he cuts to the chase and ensnares the reader with an elegant composure:

Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendía was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice. (A Hundred Years of Solitude)

On the day they were going to kill him, Santiago Nasar got up at five-thirty in the morning to wait for the boat the bishop was coming on. (Chronicle of a Death Foretold)

Since it’s Sunday and it’s stopped raining, I think I’ll take a bouquet of roses to my grave. (Someone Has Been Disarranging These Roses)

When Jose Montiel died, everyone felt avenged except his widow; but it took several hours for everyone to believe that he had indeed died. (Montiel’s Widow)

Senator Onesimo Sanchez had six months and eleven days to go before his death when he found the woman of his life. (Death Constant Beyond Love)

Hemingway and García Márquez also differed on how lasting ones’ journalistic apprenticeship should be. The former admitted that journalism was good training for a young novelist, but contended that it was important to get out in time, because newspapers could ruin a writer. García Márquez felt otherwise. “That supposedly bad influence that journalism has on literature isn’t so certain,” he has said. “First of all, because I don’t think anything destroys the writer, not even hunger. Secondly, because journalism helps you stay in touch with reality, which is essential for working in literature.”

García Márquez put this belief into practice: even after he attained great success as a novelist, he never abandoned journalism. He used the money from his 1982 Nobel Prize to purchase Cambio, a failing weekly newsmagazine in Colombia. He established the Foundation for New Ibero-American Journalism, where veteran reporters give workshops for young Latin American journalists. And during the past few decades, while writing novels, he has kept reality at close quarters, publishing numerous essays, opinion pieces, articles, and a masterful book of reconstructive journalism, News of a Kidnapping. In the latter, he chronicled the abduction of ten prominent Colombians by Pablo Escobar, the head of the Medellin drug cartel, and his painstaking account of their eight-month ordeal might strike some readers as a protracted ensemble version of The Story of a Shipwrecked Sailor.

In any case, his breakthrough series went on to be one of his most popular books, selling about 10 million copies, the majority of them in the original Spanish. To his readers, this apprentice work, with its early and exquisite balance of magic and realism, fit very comfortably into the author’s canon. The fact that it was told in the first person may have actually made it feel more literary rather than less—a feat of modernist ventriloquism.

As for García Márquez himself, he had mixed feelings about the transformation of his newspaper series into a bona fide work of art—or at least a hardcover book. And in a new introduction he wrote, he seemed to betray some nostalgia for the days when he was simply a semi-anonymous reporter rather than an international brand name. “I have not reread this story in fifteen years,” he wrote. “It seems worthy of publication, but I have never quite understood the usefulness of publishing it. I find it depressing that the publishers are not so much interested in the merit of the story as in the name of the author, which, much to my sorrow, is also that of a fashionable writer. If it is now published in the form of a book, that is because I agreed without thinking about it very much, and I am not a man to go back on his word.”

Miles Corwin , a former reporter for the Los Angeles Times, teaches literary journalism at the University of California, Irvine. His novel, Kind of Blue, will be released in November.




Dimitri Tiomkin as I remember him

JUNE 1, 2013 · POSTED IN COMMENTARY
by Jack Wallace, boryanabooks

Dimitri Tiomkin at work, mid-1940s.

He was without a doubt the greatest tunesmith who helped invent the music of Hollywood during the sound era. Just as Aaron Copland defined the sound of the American West of myth and legend for ballet and the concert hall, so did Dimitri Tiomkin do the same thing for the movies. It was a half a century ago and still is today a maxim in Hollywood that more is usually better. For Dimitri, more was usually OK, but the most was even better. For many of his scores, nothing less than the biggest, the loudest, and the most colorful (richly orchestrated) would do. Case in point: in Alfred Hitchcock’s thriller, I Confess, there’s a scene where Montgomery Clift, playing a priest, is crossing the street on his way to church. For most other film composers, a solo instrument such as a piano would have been sufficient, even in those days. But not for Dimitri, for whom the full orchestra blasting away as though reaching the finale of a Mahler symphony was what was the scene compelled. Excessive? Maybe. But he was a first rate composer who happened to be working in the movies; and the interplay of the music with the action on screen turned the routine into the memorable.

 

French window card for High Noon.

Dimitri was also the first American film composer to use a chorus (Red River) to elevate action sequences into historical narrative and the first to use a balladeer (High Noon) so that the poignant use of the song “Do Not Forsake Me, Oh My Darlin’” turns the film itself into a ballad. As a matter of fact, I’ve been told by people who were there that test audiences responded poorly to High Noonbefore the music went in. But once the music enveloped the film, High Noon became the most highly regarded picture of 1952. The fact that it didn’t win the Best Picture Oscar® owes everything to the politics of McCarthyism of the time and nothing to the merits of the picture that did end up winning the Best Picture Oscar® that year, The Greatest Show on Earth, unquestionably the lousiest movie to ever have been so honored. But that hardly mattered inasmuch as Greatest Showwas directed by Cecil B. DeMille, who had burnished his patriotic bonafides by out-McCarthying McCarthy.

It was my pleasure to know Dimitri Tiomkin while we were both working on William Wyler’s film of Friendly Persuasion back in 1955. Dimitri had come to Hollywood in the 1930s; I started to work in the “biz” [shortened from show biz, an informal expression for those in the entertainment industry, particularly in Hollywood—Ed.] shortly after I got out of the Marines in 1946. One of my first projects was assisting my brother-in-law at the time, Franchot Tone, on the production of The Man on the Eiffel Tower, a picture which he also produced and which starred, along with Franchot, Burgess Meredith, Charles Laughton, and my older sister, Jean Wallace. I worked on that picture as a student script clerk and otherwise assisted by doing anything and everything anybody asked me to do.

Jack Wallace in the editing room at work on Friendly Persuasion at the Monogram lot in Hollywood. Allied Artists, the production company responsible for the film, rented space at Monogram.

For Friendly Persuasion I was initially assigned to director William Wyler for whom I performed a variety of functions. One of them was that of an assistant editor who would review all of the second unit material and organize it for sequential laying into the movie by the film’s main editor, Robert Swink, whom Wyler had also used on Roman Holiday a few years before.

Another thing Wyler had me do was assist the film’s most important star, Gary Cooper, keep him company, and generally act pleasant around him. One day Cooper and I went to lunch at the Brown Derby in Hollywood, which was on Vine Street just south of Hollywood Boulevard.

Gary Cooper

Lunch lasted about an hour and a half; and Coop had a lot on his mind that he wanted to share with me, except that none of it had to do with the picture. No, the one and only topic that was of any interest to Gary Cooper was women. I hardly knew the man; but that didn’t keep him from describing with specificity what he surmised the waitress, every woman we saw walking in or out of the restaurant, and every woman we could see at a table would look like without her clothes on. Each of the women of manageable age was graded not only as to her physical appearance, but also as to what Coop thought to be the woman’s love making skills. He had a one-track mind, and the purity of his focus kept me entertained from the moment I sat down at his table until we left the restaurant.

When the film was through shooting and had been edited so everyone was pretty much satisfied with the way it was going to look once the picture made it to the theaters, it was time to start working seriously on the music; and William Wyler—or Willy Wyler as he was called by his intimates—turned me over to the film’s composer, who took an instant like to me, as I did to him.

Director William Wyler

I remember that cold winter evening at Paramount Studios when I arrived with Dimitri so we could watch what we were told was the final cut before the scoring of the music. Also present at Paramount that night were Willy, first editor Swink, second editor Robert Belcher, and a few others who had something to do with the production of the picture but whose names I can’t recall at this time.

Wyler had made some movies that were memorable on account of their quality–Dodsworth,Wuthering Heights, and Carrie come to mind–and several that are memorable for being ponderous. In that category I would place Ben-HurThe Best Years of Our Lives, andFriendly Persuasion, the latter which was probably the most ponderous of all in his oeuvre.Friendly Persuasion in the version we saw without the music was one helluva long and painful movie; and after it was over, Wyler turned to Tiomkin and told him that he would be letting Tiomkin know shortly where the music ought to go and what he expected to hear. Now in many cases, especially where the collaboration between the film’s director and his composer is one based on mutual respect, the “spotting of the picture,” i.e. defining those parts of the film best served by musical support, is a collaborative effort as between the composer and the director.

Dimitri Tiomkin (seated at piano), with (left to right) director William Wyler, actor Gary Cooper, actor Walter Catlett, and choral director Jester Hairston. Taken during the music rehearsal or recording session for Friendly Persuasion, circa 1955-1956.

Steven Spielberg and John Williams are said to typically work together in this fashion. There are also a few cases where the composer is thought of so highly that he not only decides unilaterally where the music is to go, but the director even collaborates with the composer with the editing to make sure the music will be best served by the picture (rather than the other way around, which is the way things are typically done). I’ve read that Prokofiev worked together in this manner with Sergei Eisenstein on Alexander Nevsky; and the result was a splendid score, the cantata derived from which has remained the most often performed composition for film in the concert hall repertoire.

It is the rare case where the director intimates to the composer, as Wyler did here, that the decisions respecting the placement of the music and the type of music called for, are decisions for the director. As soon as Wyler finished telling Tiomkin what the former expected–that he, Wyler, would be solely responsible for any and all decisions pertaining to the music–Tiomkin let loose with a series of invectives that surpassed anything I had ever heard in my life, even in my four years with the Marines during and just after World War II. Long story short, Dimitri was ready to kill just about everyone in the room with the possible exception of yours truly. “You’re gonna tell me where you want my music in your lousy, stinking, *%@)$^!#*%@!Q(Y%* picture! What do you take me for? I’ve been writing the music in my head for your crappy movie since you gave me that godawful script and the stupid novel on which it was based. You want to tell me where the picture needs music? I figured that out while I watched it, and you’re going to need a lot of it if this picture is ever going to work.” Because he had expected it, Wyler took it all in with a bemused look. As for Dimitri, he turned to me and, without missing a beat, said, “Come on, Boychik, let’s get the hell out of here.” And so we left.

Over the next several weeks, Dimitri wrote his usual splendid score. Its theme song, “Thee I Love,” with lyrics by Paul Francis Webster, was nominated for an Oscar® and later turned into hit singles by both Pat Boone and the Four Aces. I worked with Dimitri for the entire time that the film was being scored. Not being a composer or even musically trained, I couldn’t assist with the orchestration; but I was able to help him in at least a couple of ways.

Dimitri Tiomkin at the piano, with actors Gary Cooper (hand on chin) and Walter Catlett (far right), Friendly Persuasion, circa 1955-1956.

First of all, I was able to help him with the music editor, Richard Harris. You see, William Wyler was a director who could not stop touching his picture. Every day he had a new thought. Dimitri once said to Wyler, “Just give me the *#!@#*%#* picture, and stop changing it. When you change the picture, I have to change my music.” Willy would dismissively say to Dimitri, “Sure, sure; right,” and then go back and make even more changes. Two feet here; two more feet there. Instead of ending a scene with a close-up of a woman, he’d end up with a close-up of a man; or instead of ending with a close-up of a man, he’d end the scene with a close-up of a woman. He fiddled, and he fiddled; and I must say, he fiddled pretty well. It’s not really that unusual to fiddle. A certain amount of it goes on even after the “final cut” in every picture, even in the cheesy Tarzan movies of the time.

William Wyler

Unfortunately, fiddling always makes it more difficult for the composer. In the case of William Wyler’s movies and, I think, Friendly Persuasionin particular, it happened more than on most movies.

And so I acted as the liaison between Dimitri and the music editor, Richard Harris. If there was anything I could do to convince Harris, who was taking his orders from Wyler, to do something less drastic in the re-editing that would cause Dimitri to have to suffer through fewer re-writes, I would do that to the best my abilities.

Dimitri Tiomkin with music cutter Dick Harris (first on his left).

Sometimes I would, even at the risk of trying to help above my pay grade, talk to Harris about ways I thought the music could be shifted around so it wouldn’t have to be re-composed. The funny thing about it, of course, is that Dimitri could have done everything I did much better himself had he bothered to approach Harris directly. But he liked having me do it, just as he liked having me around.

I guess you might say that I was Dimitri Tiomkin’s go-to guy on Friendly Persuasion. He liked me–called me “Boychik” [a Yiddish word for a young man with more chutzpah than brains—Ed.] whenever he addressed me–because I was properly nebbish around him but at the same time could still say witty things. I guess he thought I was funny. A lot of people have told me that I have a good sense of humor, and I suppose it’s true. But I’ve never let my sense of humor interfere with diplomacy. It was, of course, one thing for me to sit patiently in Dimitri’s study while listening to him vent on the film’s director, some of its actors—Tony Perkins was all wrong in our opinion for the part of Gary Cooper’s son—and various others associated with the picture in one capacity or another; and it was also OK for me to nod my ahead and agree with him. But he also appreciated that I didn’t try to match him story for story, invective for invective. The reality is that I was making the best money in my life at the time, and my regard for those who were paying me was sufficient to prevent me from doing anything that might cause them to rethink our relationship.

From left to right: Cornel Crawford, Karol Crawford, and Eugene Zador.
In 1971 and 1972, Jack’s younger sister, Karol, would spend at least half an hour most Saturday nights empathizing with Los Angeles composer Eugene Zador in the privacy of his study as he would hold court on who, for better or for worse, was who in music. (For example, Schoenberg was a fraud.) Karol appreciated Dr. Zador’s “observations” no less than Jack enjoyed listening to what Dimitri Tiomkin told him in private two decades earlier about who in the “biz” was any good and who was simply a jerk. (According to Dimitri, there seemed to have been an endless supply of the latter.)

Mainly he liked me because I liked him, respected his talent, and knew something about fine music and the other arts. And also because I enjoyed listening to him grouse about others in the “biz” whom he considered, with good cause I should say, to be his intellectual and creative inferiors.

(As it happened, my younger sister, Karol, would listen patiently and respectfully to the grousings of another gifted Los Angeles composer approximately two decades later, albeit it under completely different circumstances and for one whose operas, concertos, and other orchestral pieces without doubt surpassed his music for film. The composer’s name was Eugene Zador; but that’s another story, and I digress.)

I remember Dimitri Tiomkin fondly for his wit, his honesty, his skills as a musician, and for his outgoing personality. Tiomkin, who conducted his own scores, enjoyed going overtime and maybe even an extra day because it gave him pleasure to see the musicians who were giving everything they had to his music make some extra money. I remember that while he was conducting the music for Friendly Persuasion on Stage Nine at Goldwyn Studios, he had this enormous Russian guy friend of his, or maybe it was just another assistant, come over to him with a towel, liquid, and a change of shirt; and then Dimitri, while standing in front of the whole orchestra instead of modestly retiring behind a screen, would strip down to waist, have the liquid applied to his upper body, towel off, put on a fresh shirt, and then go back to the business of conducting his terrific score.

U.S. insert (movie poster).

When Friendly Persuasion was complete, there were at least three different previews in three different towns. Dimitri, whose contract probably required him to attend, didn’t care to walk into the theaters where the film was being shown in the company of William Wyler. But he always made sure to ask me to be with him at the previews, and so, glad that it meant something to him, I couldn’t have been happier to spend those evenings with him.

I’ll turn 87 this coming Saturday. Friendly Persuasionhappened a long time ago. With the exception of Richard Eyer, who played the other son of Gary Cooper and Dorothy McGuire, everyone who had anything important to do with the film is no longer with us. But, mostly because of my friendship with Dimitri Tiomkin, I remember it all with clarity and delight.

Jack Wallace, as told to Les Zador
Thursday, April 24, 2013
Los Angeles, California

*   *   *

Jack Wallace with his sisters and nephew, circa 1968. From left to right: Cornel Crawford, Jean Wallace, Jack Wallace, and Karol Crawford.

Jack Wallace (b. 1926) worked in Hollywood as an assistant editor and publicist, among other things. His sister, Jean Wallace, was married to actor Franchot Tone during the 1940s and later to actor and director Cornel Wilde. She appeared with Wilde in several of his films, most notably his anti-war epic from 1967,Beach Red. Jack Wallace personal photographs courtesy Jack Wallace and Les Zador.

Thanks to Les Zador for making this article possible. Les has been friends with Jack and other Wallace family members for more than 40 years. In April, Les sat down with Jack to capture Jack’s memories of working with Tiomkin on Friendly Persuasion. Les serves on the board of the Film Music Foundation and is a practicing attorney in Encino, California.

Of this article, Olivia Tiomkin wrote, “It is a real gem and it’s wonderful to still have Jack around to tell his story.”

______________________________________________

This article by Jack Wallace may also be found on the Dimitri Tiomkin website together with a great deal of additional information about Mr. Tiomkin’s life and his career together with many additional photos and Tiomkin “news.”  To that end, we encourage you to peruse the Tiomkin website for more information–www.dimitritiomkin.com–biographical and otherwise.