Is Dietrich Through? (2/2)

In their January 1933 edition the fan magazine, Photoplay, published an exclusive interview with Marlene by Ruth Biery. Dietrich's "startling statements" promised to answer the questions that "kept the public and studios agog". (We presented Part One of the interview on Monday.)

PART TWO: AN UNDERSTANDING HUSBAND

Her American life has not been happy. Her first year -- Mrs Von Sternberg's suit for alienation of affections. The suit was understandable from an wholly American viewpoint -- it was completely a puzzle from Marlene's European one. She had a husband. He understood. Why should not Mr Von Sternberg's wife do the same? she reasoned. Incidentally, I have known both Marlene and Von Sternberg since she first came and I have always said both in print and in person that Marlene's devotion has always been as she now explains it.


A mental and, to her, common sense one. Then -- the fight on "Blonde Venus". Von Sternberg did not want to direct it. The studio wished to make the story saccharine. He bolted. Richard Wallace was assigned as director. She bolted. You now know why. Von Sternberg really went back and directed that picture for the sake of Marlene. He hated it then -- he hates it now. And no man can do a truly great picture with a story which he hates.

And then -- the kidnapping threats for her baby. Any description of her suffering would sound like an exaggeration. That Marlene Dietrich has a mother complex, no American would question. To her, the extend of her love is is only as natural as her refusal to be directed by any man other than the one who bridged the screen chasm for her. The letters she received were made up of words clipped from newspapers to avoid trace of handwriting. People said it was a joke.

They continued for six weeks. Each new letter showed a new knowledge of her movements. Why had she hired detectives? Why had she taken her child to such and such a place the day before? Marlene Dietrich was close to a mad woman. Neither she nor her child even now stir in the open today without armed guards.

The bars on the windows of her home are inches thick.

Posters and Dresses

I must say that I've always appreciated this Blonde Venus movie poster, the black-gloved arms obscured against the black background as well as the drapery clinging to the hips cleverly referencing the famous Venus de Milo statue. Certainly, others share my appreciation. Last year, Peter Sachs sued the German Historical Museum of Berlin for his belated father's Blonde Venus poster. After the museum claimed that the poster wasn't in its possession, Sachs sued the museum for a collection of over 4,000 posters that belonged to his father. The most recent news indicates that the court recognizes Sachs as the legal owner, but I haven't seen any updates since last week. If you're interested in the history behind the poster collection, click here. One article was terribly biased toward Sachs, resorting to a kitschy headline seemingly meant to trigger old World War II sentiments--"U.S. Ex-Pilot Named Owner of Gestapo-Looted Poster Collection" (later edited to the less vulgar "Ex-Pilot is Owner of Nazi-Looted Posters, Judge Says").

Although both sides may feel sore about the issue, I do hope that some arrangement is made to keep the exhibited posters in their current displays and also to keep these posters preserved for future displays and research. At the German museum, professionals are handling them. Sachs doesn't even know what he'd do with them.

Interestingly, the British government has also made the news by banning the export of 11 Vionnet dresses, whose bias-cut design won Dietrich's favor according to reports and--if memory serves me correctly--Maria Riva's biography. British cultural bigwigs now vie for time, hoping some wealthy benefactor will purchase the dresses from their anonymous private owner. Could Britain's actions set a precedent for the state-owned German museum to follow?