I found this clipping the other day while doing some research. It certainly speaks to the times - especially the public interest in the lives of show girls. Today, I suppose there is equal interest in the lives of actors and actresses, and musicians.I don't know how accurate are its figures - even in general terms. Nevertheless, I found it quite interesting. At the time it was published, 1926, Louise Brooks would have fallen under the categories of "Married" and "In the movies."
4 comments:
Florenz Ziegfeld signed a piece that appeared in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle in November, 1926, in which he addressed the issue, What becomes of "Follies" girls. He cited 15 or 16 "beauties" who'd left his productions "to excel in other departments of artistic life and endeavor" -- but he expounded on only two: one Anonymous, the other ... Louise Brooks. The article is online at fultonhistory.com, where a Search of ... oh, "vivacious Charleston" will find it.
On a related note: "According to Hollywood statistics beauty contest winners make splendid waitresses." --Eric Clarke, general manager of the Eastman Theatre (Rochester, N.Y.), January, 1927.
I tried to check out the fultonhistory.com website, but couldn't get to it. It seems to be down, or gone.
I know I had looked at the site some time ago, perhaps early last year - and found some nice clipping realted to LB from upstate New York.
If you hear of the site coming back online, please let me know.
They just upped their count of online New York (state) newspaper pages from nine million to ten and a quarter; that may have caused technical difficulties yesterday. I got through today.
Pandora's Box sold out the L.A. Orpheum, eh? Wow!
Post a Comment