Pages

12 November 2012

Dietrich Apocrypha: Eryk Hanut's I Wish You Love

The second blog entry in a series about Marlene Dietrich biographies that have not joined Maria Riva and Steven Bach's books in the Dietrich canon.

When I began writing this entry, my opening line was, "Like any genre, biographies tend to be cannibalistic." What hogwash! Those who have written biographical accounts about Marlene Dietrich may have often referenced each other, but I can't deny that they presented untapped sources that always stop me from throwing out their biographical babies with the bathwater. For example, Donald Spoto impressively managed to quote the then-unpublished memoirs of Marlene's acting school pal, Grete Mosheim, in his book, whereas the great Steven Bach merely cited Charles Higham's brief account about the two Berthold Held neophytes.

Rather than generalize all biographies, I should have only called Eryk Hanut's I Wish You Love: Conversations With Marlene Dietrich cannibalistic. It's as if he inverted the narrative of Goya's Saturn by devouring every available biographical account on Dietrich, regurgitating his readings to her, and eventually compiling her reactions in his own biographical account. Pardon me if that sounds unkind because I do in fact appreciate this book as a series of somewhat Socratic dialogues between Dietrich and Hanut. The questions that Hanut poses aren't the insipid fare. There's no "What was Hollywood like?" Well, almost nothing like that. Hanut does admit to asking, "What was it like, the war?" To which Marlene responds, "You are being really stupid" (p. 84). Usually, though, Hanut asks questions such as, "Who are your favorite painters, Marlene?" (p. 70). If you were the least bit cynical, you would probably suspect that Marlene's answer--Cézanne--came from her memoirs rather than any conversation that Hanut had with Dietrich. Who really knows?

I will be unambiguously skeptical about a few details, though, after reading a comment recently made by the inimitable Sauli Miettinen. Hanut recalls seeing Marlene perform in Paris when he was 8 years old. We later learn that Hanut was born in 1967. Let's do the math. 1967 plus 8 makes 1975. I, however, see no indication that Marlene performed in Paris during that year. We could give Hanut the benefit of the doubt because remembering one's childhood in terms of places and dates can be hazy. Perhaps he saw her when he was even younger or somewhere else altogether. I at least found evidence indicating that Hanut contributed to an exhibition of Marlene Dietrich photos, but in Charleroi rather than Brussels.

Freely admitting in his book that he did not capture their tête-à-têtes with any recording device, Hanut insists that he simply took notes, yet the dialogues in this book resemble transcripts. Either Hanut had Maria Riva's elephant memory (which I doubt given the implausibility of his account about seeing Marlene perform), he did in fact record their discussions, or he reconstructed them with a bit of imagination. Again, if my speculation sounds like unkind accusations, I assure you this isn't so. It would be tempting to record Marlene's extraordinary comments, as Louis Bozon did, wouldn't it? There's no shame in it, and no shame in reconstructing conversations either, which we all do when we tell stories, and Hanut's book had undergone a bit of work before it was published. For some reason, it was translated from French into English (and later into Portuguese), yet it remains unpublished in French. Even more unusual is that the book was published by the "New Age"-oriented Frog Ltd., an imprint of North Atlantic Books. I'd venture to guess that Hanut had connections to this publisher through his then-(and still-?)partner, Andrew Harvey.

So what about the content of the book? You can start by reading the Amazon page for a typical, queeny summary from Kirkus Reviews and also a touching review by David Riva, which provides some perspective about these phone relationships that Marlene had. What more can I tell you? Indeed, Hanut's account alternates between the conversations that he shared with Dietrich and his recollection of his own life. None of the reviews properly praise Hanut and his translator Anne-Pauline de Castries for the prose, which is quite elegant and full of vivid metaphors. Here is a line about Marlene entering a restaurant full of beautiful Parisian women after the show Hanut had allegedly seen: "Suddenly, she walked through the crowd of goddesses without seeing them, turning them into penniless fortunetellers by her mere presence" (p. 4). Whether Hanut witnessed this matters little to me because I have no doubt that these words would describe every public appearance Marlene made after she became a Hollywood star.

As I stated, the book echoes many biographical accounts of Marlene, including her memoirs and ABC as well as Schell's documentary; if you have read Bozon's, please tell me whether you see his work in Hanut's, too, because Hanut does cite La femme de ma vie. Rather than map Hanut's retellings, I'd prefer to share the incredibly bizarre relevations that I have never read or seen elsewhere. Where do I begin? How about the comments attributed to Marlene about HIV/AIDS? Hanut quotes her as saying, "All those people who catch this virus, now that everyone knows how it is transmitted, simply get what they deserve" (p. 47). In another chat, Marlene verbally eviscerates James Dean: "If he had survived, he'd have had an even fatter belly, worn a wig, and be dead now of AIDS" (p. 67). If you don't find those views jolting, read what Marlene supposedly tells Hanut to do with a dead cat (p. 120). The anecdote is so outrageous(ly hilarious) that I must refrain from spoiling the surprise.

Certainly, Marlene never goes bankrupt of two-cents, purportedly telling Hanut that Marion Davies stuttered (p. 76), that Carole Lombard had fringe (that's bangs to my fellow Americans) to "hide a scar" (p. 65), and that the Germans all knew about the Holocaust during WWII (p. 84). Verbally shanking then-contemporary celebrities left and right, Dietrich describes Jean-Paul Gaultier (at least I think she is referring to him) as "that frightful creature, a big, fat, blond man, who makes his dresses out of that plastic stuff one uses to wrap roasts" (p. 96) and--in response to learning from Hanut that Princess Stephanie of Monaco was making charity records--exclaims, "Poor things! The Salvation Army and cancer research don't deserve such a fate" (p. 52).

Despite the shock value of these quips, Hanut manages to regard Marlene with a logic that I respect. About her drinking, he responds "Thank God she did!" because he could understand how a person who has lost as much as Dietrich has would turn to alcohol, and Hanut even extends his compassion to Maria Riva, seeing in her book "a cry of never-resolved suffering" (p. 19). I couldn't agree more, although I would imagine that publishing such graphic details and raw feelings as Maria did was quite cathartic, given that her tone mellowed immensely by the start of the new millennium. If you could, please help me understand an observation that Marlene seems to have made about Cocteau: "It was the spotlights he was interested in above all, rather than the limelight" (p. 72). What's the distinction being made here? Of all of Hanut's assessments, the most astute would be the one that David Riva reiterated in the aforementioned Amazon reviews: "Marlene was the most contradictory person in the world" (p. 119).

You may find deficiencies in what you have read up to now (on my part and Hanut's), but I will tell you what I find weak about this book--some of the unclear references and the hackneyed myths passed on as facts. For example, Hanut mentions a radio interview in which Marlene discusses Sunset Boulevard, but doesn't provide any details about this interview other than the year during which it took place--1962. Frustrating! Also, Hanut is guilty of perpetuating the legend that John Gilbert's "squeaky voice" killed his career in movies (p. 103), which is false! You be the judge of that:



Finally, I'd like to acknowledge that you may not be interested in reading my essays. Believe me, I won't shed any tears over it, which is why I'd like to direct you to the sidebar of this blog, where you will find links to our affiliated Facebook, Tumblr, YouTube, and Pinterest pages. These are excellent and much more pithy resources for learning about and enjoying an array of Marlene Dietrich-related goodies. Please like, follow, subscribe, and pin!

21 comments:

  1. With this book I learnt a lot of things about... Eryk Hanut !

    Les paroles de Marlene enregistrées par Bozon ne sont pas des conversations "piratées" par le journaliste, mais les extraits d'une longue interview que Marlene avait décidé de lui donner pour le récompenser de ses bons et loyaux services. Elle lit ses réponses, soigneusement préparées pendant des mois. Le travail s'est étendu sur un an, mais n'a jamais été achevé.

    Je me suis posé des questions en lisant le livre de Hanut, j'ai eu des doutes, ce que je n'ai pas eu avec le livre d'Alain Bosquet "Un amour au téléphone". Ce livre reprend ses conversations téléphoniques avec Marlene, tout est crédible et j'ai appris des choses. En outre, Norma, sa femme, était la secrétaire de Marlene.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fabrice, thanks for clarifying about Bozon. I still need to acquire all the French-language books about Marlene that haven't been translated into English. Although I've been known to squander money on books, I would like to ask why Norma's book is so much more expensive than other bios. Was its printing suppressed?

      What questions and doubts did you have about Hanut's book? Were they the same as mine? Also, do you have any ideas about why Hanut's book wasn't published in French? Is it too similar in genre to other French-language books (e.g., Alain Bosquet and Louis Bozon's)?

      Delete
    2. Joseph, je vous conseille chaudement le livre de Bozon. Celui de 2012 est plus complet que celui de 1992. Je ne sais pas pourquoi le livre de Norma serait plus cher, ce n'est pas le plus long. Sur AMAZON, il est plutôt accessible (moins de 4 euros). Est-ce parce qu'il est plus récent (2007) que celui de son mari (1992) et le premier Bozon ? Le livre d'Alain Bosquet a été réédité en 2002 sans autre modification que la couverture.
      J'ai retrouvé dans votre analyse mes doutes à propos du livre de Hanut, je suis rassuré, heureux de voir que je n'ai pas tendance à voir le mal partout. Hanut parle surtout de sa petite personne, les livres de Bozon et des époux Bosquet contiennent réellement des informations inédites. Je ne comprends pas pourquoi un livre rédigé en français n'est pas disponible dans cette langue ! Les livres de Maria, Bozon et Bosquet sont sortis au même moment et on trouvé leur public, le livre de Hanut se serait de même vendu quelques années plus tard.

      Delete
    3. Ah, I always forget that Amazon.fr (or .de or .co.uk) and Amazon.com are different markets. On the American Amazon site, Norma's book is available for $66--a ridiculous price! I will try ordering lots of things on Amazon.fr and see how successful it is.

      Fabrice, are there any other Marlene biographies that have not been translated into French? I checked WorldCat and La Bibliotheque nationale de France's catalogs and didn't see Steven Bach's book in French. What a surprise! At least it is in Japanese, German, and Russian.

      Delete
    4. $66 ? You're wright, Joseph, it's ridiculous ! Même avec les frais de port, Amazon.fr doit être plus économique.

      Le livre de Bach; celui de Peter Riva & JJ Naudet; A Woman at War, MDR ne sont pas traduits et "Her Own Song" n'est pas sous-titré en français. Un vrai scandale !

      Delete
    5. Well, I did indeed order lots of books. Maybe I'll finally get that copy of the Remarque letters with the Marlene nude, too.

      As for the lack of French translations, it truly is scandalous! Perhaps you should offer your services?;)

      Delete
    6. Méchant, méchant garçon, vous vous moquez ! Je pourrais traduire en... franglish ? Je vous croyais gentil, mais vous êtes pire que Bette Davis et Joan Crawford enfermées dans une cabine téléphonique ! Je vais aller pleurer une rivière (ou deux).
      ;)

      Delete
    7. Oh, I can be cruel! Let your tears flow! If you have enough for 2 rivers, why not fill the Tigris and the Euphrates by standing in Iraq, dear? Just don't do anything down there that breaks Hammurabi's code--it's an eye for eye, you know!

      Delete
    8. Le code d'Hammurabi était un progrès à son époque...
      Mes larmes sont que salées que l'océan, attention aux vagues !

      Delete
  2. I have always thought of the Hanut book as a sort of elaborate fiction,and taken with a pince of salt.Too much Hanut and not enough Dietrich.Notice how he describes her dress as "like a fish that has jumped out of the water" and Maria describes it as a "bugle-bead that we christened "the eel"because she looked like one swimming through clear water"It's an OK read but that is all.For a very quick read I enjoyed Michael Brown's "Good afternoon Miss Dietrich",at least he met her but there are a few error's,still I enjoyed it.I wont mention the Bret book because again of many errors,I know for a fact that he recorded conversations with her,but it is pretty much a cut and paste job.Paul

    ReplyDelete
  3. Joseph, I can't add anything, I never read this book. But... It's always a delight to read your writings!! Definitely puts things in perspective :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Paul, you've cut right to the crux! I wanted to say something about that fishy imagery but couldn't quite remember what could have been Hanut's source. Jean Cocteau deserves credit, too. In his salute, he cites Marlene's sequins in various films and calls her "un poisson chinois" (a Chinese fish). That Michael Brown book is one I still haven't read--thus, another to eventually add to this series!

    Karine, thank you for your kind words. If you ever do get around to reading this, please remember this post and comment here because I delight in reading your writing, too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will, thanks. I have been lazy lately, only enjoying to read al the new post without participating at all. Shame on me! I finally responded on Remarque letters foreword by Maria. I guess it is wishful thinking that I will finish writing my post on the records any time soon, sorry about that. Anyway keep up the good work, I love it!

      Delete
  5. It's always so fascinating to read this blog and comments from other people!
    Unfortunately Eryk Hanut is not with us anymore - would be great to read his response. I have read the Hanut book only once. Now I tried to re-read it but with no success ... The very beginning is too confusing. Let's take Hanut's story about the cocktail party after the assumed concert in Paris (pages 3-4). "MD floated from one group to another ..." Somehow I can't recognize MD in her 70's from this description. Of course, I never knew MD personally but I think, she didn't like joining in that kind of parties and definitely had no need to fraternize with strange people. And I repeat once more: MD didn't perform in Paris after 1973. Even if an author writes his personal memories, he should take his time and check the facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sauli, I didn't know about Eryk! After briefly looking him up, I saw some indication that he was living in Las Vegas at some point, and his Facebook page is still available. I don't believe in the paranormal, but if ghosts existed, they would currently be in the form of social media profiles.

      Now that you mention it, that description of Marlene mingling does not match other descriptions that I have read about her. The account that Jim Brochu let me post seems more like her--that Marlene stuck with her entourage and was stern with "wude" intruders.

      I must respectfully disagree about your last comment. I never considered it the onus of an author to properly research his work if he lacks the skills to do so. Rather, I place the responsibility entirely on readers to use their brains and determine whether the content presented to them is accurate. If readers want to eschew critical thinking and believe whatever anyone writes, they are frankly quite stupid.

      Delete
  6. Joseph, I understand your point. Nevertheless I can't help thinking of people who read about Marlene for the first time, perhaps at very young age. I remember myself reading our Lady's autobiography and believing every word in it. I was very young, very naive and knew MD from her film and music and some newspaper articles only. You are absolutely right, readers should use their brains but people like you and me have read so many books on MD that we hopefully are able to judge sources etc. But there are people who may read only one biography on MD and if that happens to be, for instance, Charlotte Chandler's book, so help me God! :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. One more thing: does anyone know, if Marlene Dietrich Realität - die letzten Jahre in Paris by Constantin Petru exists in any other language? It was translated from french into german but I haven't seen the book in french. In Hanut's case we wonder, if he really had close contact with MD but here we know for sure that Petru worked in the building where MD lived and he visited MD's apartment regularly. His name is mentioned many times in MD's diaries.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sauli, very young people tend to be quite stupid! "Naive" is, of course, a more polite way of saying it. I was extremely naive myself and also remember believing everything MD wrote in her memoirs--as well as whatever else I checked out from the library. Every time I see photos of myself or writing from when I was 14, I want to tear it up and scream, "I am dead! What right has she to live?!" (dubbed into Spanish, but you get the point!)

    It is quite nightmarish that a person nowadays might flip through channels or browse YouTube, catch a glimpse of a woman named Marlene Dietrich, fall in love with her face and voice, and then head to the library or Amazon and get that Chandler biography because it's one of the most recent, best-publicized books.

    About Petru's work, I usually check Worldcat to see what books are in libraries' collections, which I consider one of the best (but certainly not 100% accurate) ways to determine whether translations exist. Also I check the appropriate national library's online catalog (in this case, BnF's; I even checked the Romanian National Library's catalog because of the author's name). After searching both those catalogs, I only see this German translation of Petru's work.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you, Joseph! Nowadays I'm glad for being so naive and taking MD's memoirs as a gospel: I wrote to her, praised the book and got response! "I will always answer", she wrote to me on a photo. Some years later I wrote to her again asking her opinion of the Maximilian Schell's documentary but got no answer.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sauli Miettinen, how dare you write, in November 2012, that "unfortunately Eryk Hanut is not with us anymore", since he published comments on You Tube two week ago !!!
    (just go and see : http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7Gt_rgFle6dcZr-9uOilHg)
    ...It's not very kind of you ! I think it's simply shocking to write such things !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why the pearl-clutching comment? Sauli didn't say anything unkind or shocking, and all you had to do was correct him about Eryk Hanut. Are you, in fact, Hanut? We'd be very curious to know your take on your book if you are.

      Delete