http://louisebrookssociety.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/posing-regretted-by-louise-brooks.html
June 27, 2014
Chaplin's affair with Louise Brooks depicted in cartoon from c. 1925
The cartoon also references the then-recent suit Louise had brought against photographer John De Mirjian to prevent him from distributing nude photos he'd taken of her a couple of years before.
http://louisebrookssociety.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/posing-regretted-by-louise-brooks.html
http://louisebrookssociety.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/posing-regretted-by-louise-brooks.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Do you think the suit was a publicity stunt? All those Follies girls took nude and semi nude photos to advance their careers - why would Brooks suddenly play shy?
ReplyDeleteAt the time she said that she was no longer a chorus girl and was embarking on a serious film career and didn't want the photos to interfere. She admits that her reasons were mostly selfish.
DeleteShe talks about it here:
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/louisebrooks/intervistaXV.htm
Like you said, a lot of the Follies girls had nude/semi-nude photos taken of themselves--Norma Shearer, Barbara Stanwyck, Paulette, etc. & it didn't seem to harm their careers. Plus when would the average person even see these nude photos in those days?
I have some old "Theatre news" and "Theatre World" magazines from the early and mid 1920's and they had those Follies girls portraits in there almost every issue. But, it was considered a GOOD thing, as you were being called out and given attention. In some of the Photoplays from the 1930's, they show the portraits in "How she became a star" type stories about the big actresses of the day, and I've seen them show up in there.
ReplyDeleteBrook's interview makes it sound like she saw them as a threat to her career, which, IMO, was a ridiculous assumption and she was doing this for publicity.
ReplyDeleteShe also states that she doesn't think there's anything immodest about the photos and wouldn't have posed for them if she thought so. Then why would she go to such lengths to block them? This sort of contradictory thinking seems to be commonplace for Louise--especially her comments about Chaplin over the years.
DeleteMaybe the photos weren't flattering. Louise, though very like an adventurous child had a venturing OUT side to her too. The Lolita type parts with older men. The affair for 'vanity sake' with Garbo. Possibly the pics were not flattering or would have compromised her. I think she was always willing to try new things, only to have others turn against her and betray her. Louise____Pure or IMPURE???
ReplyDeleteI like the Lulu in Hollywood articles. She is very truthful....as is one who has nothing more to lose.....so what the hell.
CC did not even mention her in his autobiography. I would've been insulted. It would be like I was not the kind of person one would want to be associated with. I like LuLu because she doesn't embroider anything.
I think it's preposterous that Louise was insulted by not being included in his autobiography (and she clearly was based on statements she made at the time). She knew him for all of about two months and he was cheating on his wife with her. If Charlie mentioned every woman he had a fling with (plus all of the other people his fans think he should have mentioned) his book would have been 2000 pages long.
DeleteSorry, I saw a soapbox and jumped on it.
Well if he only knew her for two months....point taken.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Charlie should have split his autobiography into two books. He could have had one 500 page biography based solely on every women he ever took to his bed and another on the things that most fans actually want to hear about like his movies.
ReplyDelete