Tags
MOVIES, PHOTOGRAPHY, Self, USA
ON THIS DAY – 18 February 1970 – The Trial of the ‘Chicago 8’
A couple of days ago was the anniversary of the handing down of the all-important verdict in the so-called Trial of the ‘Chicago 8’. This was one of the most shocking, alarming, important and influential political trials in the 20th Century.
The ‘Chicago 8’ consisted of some of the most dynamic, passionate, outspoken and controversial of the relatively young contemporary American political activists in the heady days of the late-1960s.
The Chicago 8′ were:
- Abbie Hoffman (1936-1989)
- Jerry Rubin (1938-1994)
- David Dellinger (1915-2004)
- Tom Hayden (1939-2016)
- Rennie Davis (1941- )
- John R. Froines (1939- )
- Lee Weiner (1939- )
- Bobby Seale (1936- )
Glancing at this list of names containing some of the most important and influential American left-wing political activists of the 1960s and 1970s it is immediately apparent that four have passed on, and four remain. It struck me as rather a shame as well as a little disturbing that this notorious trial, the people involved, the events of the trial, and its subsequent influence, could disappear without much notice in the on-going cultural amnesia of the ‘Great Nothing’ that removes all sense of knowledge about the past. Ignorance of The Trial of the ‘Chicago 8’ evokes the ‘Santayana historic principle’ that ‘those who ignore the lessons of the past are bound to repeat them’; and what happened in The Trial of the Chicago was so shocking that, if you knew, you wouldn’t want it repeated at any cost.
Why this trial came about in the first place, and what happened during it and after it is of enormous importance – and should never be forgotten.
In August 1968, at the height of a very ‘long, hot, summer’, in Chicago during the 1968 National Democratic Convention, there was a number of rather violent anti-Vietnam ‘protests’, in which members of the ‘Chicago 8’ were actively involved. The Right-Wing reactionary conservatives in government, Republicans and Democrats, decided to may them accountable. There were formally charged with, amongst other things, the very real and serious charges of ‘conspiracy’ against the State, including the building of bombs, and for deliberately and illegally ‘crossing borders, in order to incite riot’.
The subsequent trial had more layers to it, greater complexity, and on-going relevance than a mere generational battle between the ‘Young’ and the ‘Old’. This was also a battle of conflicting visions and ideas as well as actions in regard to the US Legal system, ‘crime and punishment’, ‘justice’, and the ‘American way of life’. It was a battle between the old dominant ruling conservative ‘white’ ‘Right’, exemplified by presiding Illinois District Court Judge Julius Hoffman (1895-1983), and Illinois State Prosecutors Richard Schutlz and Tom Foran (? -2000), and the more radical ‘younger counter-culture’ ‘Left’, exemplified by the ‘Chicago 8’ and their equally out-spoken attorney’s William Kunstler (1919-1995) and Leonard Weineglass (1933- 2011),
The Trial of the ‘Chicago 8’ descended into a complete and utter travesty of so-called American justice and the contemporary US Legal System. It exposed the ruthlessness as well as the determination of both sides, in regard to their vision of the ‘American Way of Life’, what was acceptable and non-acceptable behavior, and a new vision of ‘the American Dream’ that drove fear into the heart of conservative America.
The reasons why this particular group of men from the ‘Left-wing’ of American politics was chosen to be the scapegoats for the violent demonstrations that occurred in Chicago in that hot August in 1968 is not altogether clear. Part of the reason lies with other matters, such as African-American activist Bobby Seale who was a co-founder of the militant African-American organization known as ‘The BlackPanthers’ that had very little to do with the demonstrations in Chicago that August in 1968.
Maybe the ‘Chicago 8′ were charged because of the way they dressed? They were all relatively young men, fresh out of college, smart and ambitious and ready to make their mark on US politics, society and culture. The ‘Chicago 8′, for the most part, and as contemporary photographs of them reveal, dressed in the popular ‘hippie’, ‘beatnik’, and ‘denim’ counter-culture fashions of the late-1960s. Furthermore, they grew their hair. It is sometimes a forgotten aspect of the American counter-culture of the 1960s and 1970s that young men growing their hair, and/or having it ‘permed’ to complement modern youth fashions, was also an act of rebellion against the conservative ‘Right’, who preferred and in some places demanded that men and boys had the same militaristic ‘short back and sides’ cut their hair. The song ‘Hair’ from the landmark musical HAIR, which had just opened on Broadway in 1968, reflects and satirizes this contemporary revolutionary obsession with the length of one’s hair.
Whilst to modern eyes it is perhaps too easy to place Judge Julius Hoffman and his associates as the villains, and the ‘Chicago 8′ and their respective attorneys as the victims. The truth is more complex, with neither side behaving with much grace and generosity towards the other. On the contrary, both sides indulged in ruthless, intolerant, and aggressive behavior to one another, as exemplified in the case of Bobby Seale.
From its very beginning, the actual trial of the ‘Chicago 8‘ was surrounded with controversy and relatively strange and inexplicable choices, such as those associated with Bobby Seale. It was a sheer accident as well as blatant manipulative opportunism that saw Bobby Seale suddenly been made to be a part of the ‘Chicago 8’. Prior to this, Bobby Seale had had very little to do with the anti-Vietnam War ‘protest’ leaders, such as Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and Tom Hayden. Bobby Seale was the co-founder of the newly formed militant and relatively subversive and intimidating African-American organization, The Black Panthers. To the conservative ‘Right’, Bobby Seale represented a very real and dangerous threat to their decaying vision of the ‘(‘white’) American way of Life’. Even though he was only in Chicago for two days during the National Democratic Convention, nonetheless, he was considered equally guilty as the others in regard to the charges of being involved in a ‘conspiracy’ against the State, and ‘crossing border, to incite riot’.
What happened to Bobby Seale during the course of this trial came to exemplify and symbolize the worst of this trials abuse of privilege, power, and justice.
From the very beginning of the trial, Bobby Seale fought for his right to choose his own legal counsel and for his case to be heard separately from the others. His appeals were ignored and dismissed, and he became outraged. In every court session, he would speak up loudly and passionately, demanding his rights for his legal counsel and for his case to be trialed separately. He never stopped – ever. Supported by his co-accused, his constant barrage of loud and assertive interjections prevented the relatively smooth process of the trial and the day-to-day running of the court. Finally, after yet another loud and aggressive altercation Judge Julius Hoffman, in order to silence Bobby Seale did the unthinkable. He charged Bobby Seale with ‘contempt of court’, which carried with it a 4-year prison sentence, and then when that still did not silence him, Judge Hoffman ordered the courtroom staff to bind Bobby Seale to a chair in the courtroom, and ‘gag’ him. This was done, not just once – but four times. This drastic and brutal action, known as ‘the “gagging” of Bobby Seale’became the most notorious incident this trial full of notorious incidents. It came to symbolize the utter travesty of justice, the use, and abuse of privilege and power, and essential American civil and human rights.
Whilst arguably Bobby Seale through his own abusive behavior, particularly towards Judge Hoffman, may have brought this on himself, no one could have predicted the punishment. It shocked the nation and helped turn public opinion in favor of the ‘Chicago 8’. Throughout all this, Bobby Seale stood firm. indignantly defiant and demanded his right for legal representation and for his case to be heard separately. Promises and reassurances were made, but nothing happened, which only fueled his anger and outrage. However, following his controversial ‘gagging’ of Bobby Seale, Judge Hoffman then severed Seale’s relationship with the others, who henceforth were known as the ‘Chicago 7′ for the rest of the two-year trial. Eventually, all charges against Bobby Seale were dropped, nonetheless, he still served time in prison because of his (justifiable) ‘contempt in court’.
The ‘Not Guilty’ verdict that came down on 18 February 1970 may have released the ‘Chicago 7’ from the ‘conspiracy’ charges, but they received a ‘Guilty’ verdict for ‘crossing borders, to incite riot’. This was partially true as they did know that what they were doing was technically illegal, and they did intend to disrupt the National Democratic Conventions. They each received prison sentences for this ‘crime’, in addition to the racked-up years they received for the numerous ‘contempt in court’ penalties they and their attorney’s received from Judge Julius Hoffman. Subsequently, each member of the ‘Chicago 8’ received prison sentences. Essentially, each member of the ‘Chicago 8’ received prison sentences of approximately 10 years each.
In 1972, just two years after the official verdicts, the respective Trial of the ‘Chicago 8’, and the later Trial of the ‘Chicago 7’, and the case against Bobby Seale were reviewed. The subsequent results of this review were considerable. The charges against the ‘Chicago 7’ and Bobby Seale were dropped and their respective sentences squashed. The respective trials had shown up major inadequacies and flaws in the US Legal System, which included and allowed the suppression of information, ‘extreme prejudice’ by the practicing representatives of the law, and the imposition of intimidating means to maintain order, control, and power.
The Trial of the ‘Chicago 8’ triggered off numerous judicial and law reforms in the US Legal System, particularly in regard to due process in court proceedings. The importance and significance of The Trial of the ‘Chicago 8’, and later The Trial of the ‘Chicago 7’ was partially acknowledged via being the source and inspiration and fact behind the creation of numerous artworks.
The 1968 Chicago demonstrations and the subsequent Trial of the ‘Chicago 8’, and/or Trial of the ‘Chicago 7’ has featured either directly or indirectly in a number of films and television productions. This includes Haskell Wexler’s Medium Cool (1969), Jean-Luc Godard, Jean- Pierre Grolin and the Dziga Vertov Group’s Vladimir et Rosa (1970), Peter Watkins’ Punishment Park (1971), and Woody Allen’s Bananas (1971).
Direct dramatizations, based on the transcripts of the respective trials include the BBC’s docudrama The Chicago Conspiracy Trial (1970), and HBO’s docudrama Conspiracy: The Trial of the ‘Chicago 8’, John Goodchild’s and L. A Theatre Works’ radio play The Chicago Conspiracy Trial (1993), Robert Greenwald’s Steal this Movie! (2000), Brett Morgan’s animated documentary Chicago 10: Speak Your Peace (2007), Kerry Feltham’s The Great Chicago’s Conspiracy Circus (1969/2008), Pinchas Perry’s The Chicago 8 (2009 / 2012), and Kenneth Bowser’s documentary Phil Ochs: There but for Fortune (2010),
In the world of popular music, the Trial of the ‘Chicago 8’ has featured in a number of works, notably Graham Nashe’s Chicago from his debut album Songs for Beginners. The opening line, “So your brother’s bound and gagged, and they’ve chained him to a chair”, is a direct reference to ‘the gagging of Bobby Seale’ during court proceedings in the first trial.
One of the most powerful and lasting images associated with the respective trials is Richard Avendon’s 1969 ‘wall-sized mural portrait photograph of the ‘Chicago 7’. First exhibited at the Minneapolis Institute of Art in 1970, it shows the members of the ‘Chicago 7’ in a line very similar to a conventional US Police ‘line-up’ of suspects. The Avedon portrait was shot and made before the verdicts and the official end to the trial. It has subsequently, however, toured and been shown in many art galleries and museums around the world.
The human cost to the individual members of the ‘Chicago 8’, as well as their respective families, was considerable. Despite the verdict of ‘Not Guilty ‘ for the ‘conspiracy’ charges, the members of the now ‘Chicago 7’, were found ‘Guilty’ on other charges, particularly the charge of ‘crossing borders, to incite riot’ and a number of ‘contempt of court’ fines that generally contained the added punishment of a 4 years prison sentence. All-up, each of the ‘Chicago 7’ were facing a prison service for the next 10 years.
The damage to the reputation and integrity of the American legal and justice systems was considerable. In particular, it was the jurisdiction and power of the District Courts and their respective State judges that was profoundly questioned. As with other institutions and organizations, such as the US Arms Forces and the Vietnam War, the US Legal System, particularly the numerous District Courts scattered right across and throughout the USA, experienced a radical change in how they were perceived by the general public.
A general lack of trust in the courts and the US Legal System seems to have permeated across the entire country from which it would take decades to recover.
Maybe that is the reason why when on the anniversary of the ‘Not Guilty’ vote, which marked the end of the ‘Trial of the Chicago 8’, there was barely a mention of it in the news or social media. That as well as it becoming yet another so-called meaningless incident from USA and World History, it has the potential to produce shame for allowing such a travesty of justice to exist in the first place. It has the potential to further damage the US Legal system, government, and administration because it removes trust and confidence with those particular and necessary components of an advanced ‘Western’ democratic country, that advocate the principle of ‘and justice for all’ but in reality cannot always guarantee it.
This is the reason why ‘The Trial of the ‘Chicago 8’ is so important because it reveals a crack in the system of a democratic government and the law, for which we can be and are both outraged and ashamed. There is a danger to a blind belief and expectation in the basic democratic and human rights involving the law ‘and justice for all’, which cannot always be guaranteed by that government and its legal system, even if it is advocated as an essential part of a so-called ‘democracy’.
We assume that we are all protected by the ‘Law, of the Land’ and that our individual lives, as well as our democratic right to hold differing opinions and beliefs, are sacred. We are wrong. History continually reminds us of this, and we continually ignore and dismiss it. Subsequently, this kind of abuse of power is continually repeated, and we continue to do nothing until the point where ‘and justice for all’ and other basic democratic and human rights are completely removed, and the doors to the gas chambers are opened yet again.
This is of great relevance to those living in the USA today and in other so-called ‘democratic’ countries, where the forces and supporters of far Right-Wing re-active conservatism are on the rise. The Trial of the ‘Chicago 8’ reminds us of the potential vulnerability of this scared democratic principle and human right under the law. It reminds us of the potential and actual use and abuse of this sacred democratic principle of ‘and justice for all’ by the very people who seemingly advocate it, yet some of these people will actively work to suppress it in the face of opposition to their preferred ‘way of life’. This is fascism – the active and brutal suppression of difference, as was seen throughout the entire Trial of the ‘Chicago 8’, and by both sides. It resonates with a famous proverbial statement by the 19th Century English historian, Lord Acton – ‘Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’.
Most people, it would seem are cowered and intimidated into states of bafflement, bewilderment, and silence, due to the impassioned vitriol that can spray forth from the extreme ‘Right’ and the extreme ‘Left’. It is far too much ‘noise’ in a world that is increasingly ‘noisy’ and invasive into our personal and public lives. Based on historical precedents, exemplified by life under Nazi Germany, Russian Stalinism, and any other fascistic totalitarian government or organization of ‘like-minded’ people who are intolerant of any difference, to be silenced by the heated words and actions of anger and hatred is the norm.
This is perhaps why the anniversary of the verdict for The Trial of the ‘Chicago 8’ went relatively unnoticed. What happened in that Illinois District Courtroom so many years ago produced silence as well as outrage. The Trial of the ‘Chicago 8’ was an explosive vitriolic battle of anger and resentment by both sides against each other. The outrage over the proceedings, particularly ‘the “gagging” of Bobby Seale’ is relatively easy to understand and appreciate because it was so appallingly outrageous – and yet, during four days of the course of the trial it was tolerated. Not by the victims of the oppression, but by the American people. With extensive news coverage of this very open and public display of the Government and the Law to make accountable through the Law any opposition was draconian, to say the least. It is the silence of the majority of the American people that is baffling. Most people were shocked and dismayed at what was happening, especially the image of the ‘bound and gagged’ Bobby Seale, which had all the trappings of the worst cases in Nazi Germany and beyond – but nothing happened, and the trial continued. This whole trial, this travesty of American justice, could have stopped immediately if the majority of the American people wanted it to stop, but they didn’t, and the trial continued for the next two years.
It is noticeable that the ‘voices of reason’ were relatively silent or ineffective during the course of the trial. Maybe it was because of all the ‘noise’ of hatred and resentment firing out of the courtroom that stifled any attempt to stop the trial from proceeding. Maybe the extreme Right was seen as too powerful and intimidating; maybe the extreme Left was seen as too powerful and intimidating? Maybe it was an issue of timing? Waiting for the right moment to fix up and hopefully repair any damage done. This would have been impossible to achieve if the trial continued, as it did continue for the next two years.
The ‘voices of reason and reconciliation needed to wait until all the anger, hatred, and resentment had dispersed. It is noticeable that it was two years after the verdict, in 1972 that the whole schmozzle was unpicked, charges dropped, sentences squashed and the prisoners set free. Two years may sound like a long time, but in actual fact, it is a relatively short time. To go through all the documents, transcripts, in fact, everything to do with the case, then to take any recommendations in regards to the convicted-by-Law, and go through the whole process of reversing judgments and sentences, et. al, could have taken a lot longer than two years after hearing the verdict.
It is possible that all the necessary paper-work and meetings etc may easily have been done by the respective people and organizations involved. A number of the ‘Chicago 7′ were lawyers with extensive and successful practices. It is arguable that some of the friends of the ‘Chicago 7′ had ‘influence’, which would have assisted in getting the necessary people in the US Administration and Bureaucracy to immediately attend to the documents and papers associated with the trial. Nonetheless, that it was all done in two years implies either that the US Administration and Bureaucracy was extremely, extremely efficient at this time (unlikely): or that finally the ‘Voices of Reason and Reconciliation’ were able to move quickly and collaboratively with numerous ‘stakeholders’, including that vast mass known as the ‘American People’.The relative quickness in having the whole things reviewed, overturned and the prisoners released could not have happened if the culture of anger, hatred, and resentment was still relatively dominant; any change to the judgment would have been met with opposition and from a variety of people and places. It wasn’t – which suggests the opposite – that public opinion had swung in to support the ‘Chicago 7’.
You get a hint of the gradual but steadily growing swing in favor of the campaign to free the ‘Chicago 7’ and Bobby Seale in the respective local, state and national newspapers and journals from 1970 to 1972. This swing comes at a relatively tempestuous time for the US Presidency and Administration now under the conservative grip of Republican President Nixon and his team. The campaign to free Bobby Seale and the ‘Chicago 7‘ parallels the call and drive to end US involvement in the Vietnam War, which is finally if somewhat controversially achieved in 1973. That this dominating business of the day was going on at the same time only further suggests that there must have been a lot of quick and easy collaboration between the respective Government Departments to get this matter resolved as quickly as possible.
The campaign to free Bobby Seale and the Chicago 7 catches the wave of change generated by the growing backlash against the reactive and oppressive conservative powers and their responsibility for the disastrous Vietnam War. This backlash was to take another leap forward with the ensuing ‘Watergate’ scandal and the resignation of President Nixon in 1974.
It should also be noted that this change in public opinion was partly due to the fact that The Trial of the ‘Chicago 8’, as well as Vietnam War, and the ‘Watergate’ scandal was played out on national television. It has been said that it was the influence of television that assisted in ending the Vietnam War because for the first time the real horrors of war were being broadcasted via television into ordinary American homes across the entire nation. This influence of television on public opinion in regard to the Vietnam War is equally true in regard to public opinion about The Trial of the ‘Chicago 8′; a fact driven home by the respective dramatizations of the trial, as well as in other art forms, which also presented disgust over the trial and sympathy for the ‘Chicago 8′.
To some, the ‘Chicago 8’ are still the radical left-wing, ‘hippies’, ‘traitors’, ‘druggies’, and (of course) ‘Communists’; for others, such as Richard Avedon and his generation of artists they were ‘heroes’. The truth of all this, however, lies somewhere in between. As was obvious then, The Trial of the ‘Chicago 8’ represented the polarization of the radical Left and the conservative Right in US Politics and Society in the final years of the 1960s. It showed how on both sides privilege and power can be abused, and how on both sides arrogance and entrenched prejudical behaviors and attitudes can lead to a type of physical and psychological violence. This violence unchecked can seriously undermine trust and confidence in a countries legal system and government, and make a mockery of a sacred democratic principle and belief in the right and even existence of ‘and justice for all’. The Trial of the ‘Chicago 8’ revealed how truly fragile is the law when faced with irrational fear, anger, resentment, and hatred.
There is, however, something else about ‘The Trial of the Chicago 8’ that is more positive than the fear and anger it unleashed. I experienced this ‘something else’ when I was first exposed to and learned about The Trial of the Chicago 8. I was only 11 years in 1968 and blissfully unaware of any of the people and incidences that are associated with this notorious trial and ‘travesty of justice’. Two years later, however, in 1970 it was a different story. I remember I watched with my family the excellent BBC docu-drama The Chicago Conspiracy Trial. We were all appalled, outraged and silenced by this event, particularly ‘the “gagging” of Bobby Seale,’ something hitherto we knew nothing about. In many ways, I mark the awakening of my political consciousness with seeing The Chicago Conspiracy Trial. The issues of injustice, civil and human rights discussed in this docu-drama as well as the real trial itself, was also influential in shaping the form and expression of my future social and political activism, something that was given further inspirational stimuli with the changes in Australia ushered in by the newly elected Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and the Labour Party in 1972, the ending of Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War, and the end of compulsory ‘conscription’ into the Australian Armed forces, the beginning of the ‘gay’ rights movement in Australia, and the controversial sacking of Gough Whitlam and his Labor Government in 1975.
Looking back, it now seems all so quick, so much social and political change in Australia, the USA, and the rest of the world, within the seven years between the beginning of the Trial of the ‘Chicago 8‘ in 1968, and the resignation of President Nixon, and the sacking of the Labor Government in 1975. Time and again I am reminded of the old saying, ‘From the Ashes of Disaster comes the Roses of Success’. This seems to me rather apt in regard to disastrous actual Trail of the ‘Chicago 8’, and the ‘Roses of Success’ that came from this disaster, including radical legal reforms in the US, and the eventual placement of the radical ‘revolutionaries’ that made up the ‘Chicago 8’ as first victims of prejudice and injustice, and then as ‘heroes’ for their courage and resilience as the world around them collapsed, changed, and was reborn. I was reborn – as it was their story that woke me up to the realities, privileges, vulnerabilities, and brilliant possibilities inherent in living in a ‘democracy’. Their individual and collective heroism helped shape me, and the future – and we are all the better for their trials and tribulations as the ‘Chicago 8‘.
TONY KNIGHT
George Selth Coppin (1819-1906) has been called “the father of Australian theatre” (Comedy Theatre, Melbourne, 1939). Whilst this may be disputed, nonetheless, George Coppin was one of the prime movers in establishing a professional theatre in Australia in the mid-colonial period. In many ways, he could be called 19th Century Australia’s ‘greatest showman’. As Sally O’Neill states, ‘Undoubtedly his enterprise was irrepressible; the business of entertainment suited his talents but, more important, he had an ingrained love of the theatre. He acted to make money but he found a stage in many other spheres.’ (Australian Dictionary of Biography).
methods of advertising shows, and bringing international artists to Australia, Coppin also helped to establish copyright legislation for playwrights in Australia and was one of the first to advocate for a ‘school of acting to develop Australian acting’ (Australian Dictionary of Biography). 
DAME OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND was born 1 July, 1916, in Tokyo and at the grand age of 101 she is still alive and well and living in Paris. Whilst her parents were British, nonetheless she and her younger sister Joan (later known as Joan Fontaine) was raised in Saratoga, California by their mother. She made her acting debut in an amateur production of Alice in Wonderland. What follows in this rather lengthy article is essentially a tribute to Olivia de Havilland’s brilliant career. In my respective acting classes I am often citing past great actors and films, of which my young (and not so young) students are often completely unaware. Many have not even seen or even know about Gone With The Wind, which is perhaps the film that most would identify with Olivia de Havilland. However, there is so much more to this extraordinary actress and 20th and 21st Century woman.
In 1934 she played the role of Puck in a local production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. That summer the legendary director Max Reinhardt came to Los Angeles to direct a production of The Dream at the Hollywood Bowl. One of Reinhardt’s assistants saw Olivia de Havilland in the Saratoga production. Due to this assistant’s praise Reinhardt offered de Havilland the second understudy for the role of Hermia. One week before the production opened Gloria Stuart (Titanic), who was playing Hermia, and the first understudy left the production and Olivia de Havilland went on. Reinhardt 
was so impressed with the then 18 years old Olivia de Havilland that he subsequently cast her as Hermia in his lavish 1935 film version of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. She appeared with alongside other Hollywood legends including James Cagney, Dick Powell and a very young Mickey Rooney. Also in the cast was Australian actress Jean Muir who played Helena.
The 8 films that Olivia de Havilland did with Errol Flynn’s is a classic example of the successful on-screen romantic couple. Born from the Hollywood Studio system, as well as the classical theatre, many have tried to emulate this very specific but elusive kind of movie magic, but only a few have ever been as successful as the de Havilland-Flynn pairing. This includes, Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy, and Doris Day and Rock Hudson. In modern cinema the films of Drew Barrymore and Adam Sandler are the only on-screen pairing that comes close, although I would also argue that the pairing of Kiera Knightly and Orlando Bloom in the Pirates of the Caribbean film series captures this special type of movie magic.
In the 1930s as well as the films she made with Errol Flynn she also appeared in a few films with Bette Davis, my favourite being It’s Love I’m After (1937). This marked the beginning of a life-long friendship between Olivia de Havilland and Bette Davis, which is an aspect of de Havilland’s current plans to sue the producer’s of the TV series Feud that deals with the relationship between Davis and Joan Crawford, and in which Catherine Zeta-Jones appears as Olivia de Havilland. One delightful little story about Olivia de Havilland’s relationship with Bette Davis can be found in the This Is Your Life: Bette Davis episode in which Olivia de Havilland makes a surprise appearance. She talks about her relationship with Bette Davis, who is sitting right next to her, and they laugh about how prior to The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex de Havilland was Flynn’s leading lady, but in Elizabeth and Essex she now was Bette Davis’ maid! Haha!
Olivia de Havilland also appeared in such ‘big budget’ epics such as Anthony Adverse (1936), but then came the biggest of them all – Gone With The Wind (1939).
I love Gone With The Wind, in which Olivia de Havilland played ‘mealy-mouthed’ Melanie Wilkes. She, like the rest of the film, is simply wonderful. I am fully aware that it now attracts some severe criticism in regards to its depiction of slavery and African-American stereotypes. Whilst there may be some validity in these censures, nonetheless, it is still a great film – for many reasons. Olivia de Havilland was amongst the first to congratulate Academy Award co-Best Supporting Actress nominee Hattie McDaniel when McDaniel won the award – the first African-American actress to do so. I love Hattie McDaniel’s quip when she was criticized as subscribing to so-called ‘Uncle Tom’ black stereotypes for her fabulous and memorable performance of Mammy: “I’d rather make seven hundred dollars playing a maid than seven dollars being one’.
Despite being somewhat overshadowed by Vivien Leigh, with whom Olivia de Havilland enjoyed a great friendship and working relationship, nonetheless, de Havilland’s Melanie also displays a wonderful ‘cool charm’ and ability to successfully lie and deceive. This ‘cool charm’ is particularly apparent in the second half of the film, in the Atlanta section, involving the deception of the army in regards to her wounded husband, Ashley (Leslie Howard). Olivia de Havilland is also at her best in all her scenes with Vivien Leigh (and there are a lot) including the final ‘death of Melanie’ scene. She is also wonderful in her scenes with Clark Gable, comforting him after the death of Bonnie, and before that her one scene with the terrific Ona Mason as Belle Watling.
One terrific example of superb screen acting is the sequence in which Melanie recognizes from afar the returning battle scarred Ashley (Leslie Howard); in this short sequence there are no words spoken, and the range of emotions that go across Olivia de Havilland’s face is wonderful and extraordinary – from concern, intrigue, disbelieve, realization and finally rapturous joy. I love Gone With The Wind and have watched it many many times, and always find it delightful and discovering something new about it.
Olivia de Havilland made 16 films during the 1940s. The best of these in the e 40s are Santa Fe Trail (1940), The Strawberry Blonde (1941), Hold Back the Dawn (1941) and The Died with their Boots On (1941). During WW2 Olivia de Havilland was an active member of the Hollywood Canteen, dancing and entertaining troops. This is somewhat reflected in the film 
Thank Your Lucky Stars (1943), in which she appears in a comic song ‘The Dreamer’ with Ida Lupino and George Tobias. Olivia de Havilland also bravely visited front-line troops on islands and other places in the Pacific war zone.
In 1945 she signed a two-picture deal with Paramount Pictures and subsequently made To Each His Own (1946), for which she received her first Academy Award for Best Actress.What To Each His Own exemplifies is Olivia de Havilland’s artistic need and desire to play characters that go through a considerable transformation, physically as well as psychologically. In To Each His Own Olivia de Havilland beautifully plays an unwed mother who has to give up her child. In this highly romantic drama the character she plays, Jody, ages from a young innocent American girl to an old woman in WW2 London. Whilst it is perhaps easy today to dismiss this sentimental drama, nonetheless, for its time it was covering controversial ground. Furthermore, To Each His Own marked the beginning of a new period in Olivia de Havilland’s career that saw her make films which what are possible her most impressive in regards to acting performances.
This includes the complex ‘film noir’ psychological thriller The Dark Mirror (1946), in which she plays the dual role of twins battling each other in a torturous love triangle. This fascinating film, written by Nunnally Johnson and directed by Robert Siodmak has been regarded as a precursor to Johnson’s The Three Faces of Eve (1957). Olivia de Havilland was experimenting with the so-called ‘method acting’ technique, and did an enormous amount of research into the psychology of twins. It is speculative as to whether or not she also drew on her own problematic relationship with her sister, Joan Fontaine.
The Heiress is based on Henry James classic novella Washington Square, and the play adaptation by Ruth and Augustus Goetz. It is a story about deliberate cruelty. A young woman, a wealthy heiress called Catherine Sloper who is cruelly treated by her father, brilliantly played by Ralph Richardson. She falls in love with a young man, Morris Townsend, played by the irresistible Montgomery Cliff, who deserts her after being offered financial remuneration by her father. Years later, after her father has died and Catherine has inherited her fortune, Morris returns in the hope that Catherine will forgive him and that now they can be married. Catherine goes along with Morris’ plans until the devastating ending. When challenged by her Aunt Lavinia (Miriam Hopkins) as to how Catherine can be so cruel, Catherine replies, “I was taught by experts”. This is a great story, complex and intriguing and Olivia de Havilland is simply brilliant, especially in the final scenes. Once again – as with The Snake Pit, and her other films in this period, one is seduced by her seeming innocence, unaware of the serpent that lies beneath until the end. Well worth watching.
Due to family commitments and various theatre engagements in New York, which included playing Juliet in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet and Candida in George Bernard Shaw’s Candida, Olivia de Havilland did not make another film until 1952. When she did it was the mystery romance, My Cousin Rachel (1952), which was Richard Burton’s first US film. This was followed by Not as a Stranger (1955), which was Stanley Kramer’s debut film, and also featured Frank Sinatra. Her marriage to French journalist Marcus Goodrich meant that she relocated to live in Paris. She returned to Hollywood to make Michael Curtiz’s western The Proud Rebel with Alan Ladd, and 1959 she was in the British courtroom drama Libel (1959), directed by Anthony Asquith with Dirk Bogarde.
Her marriage to Marcus Goodrich ended in 1962, but they continued to 
cohabitate in the same house in Paris. In that same year Olivia de Havilland scored her greatest stage success, appearing with Henry Fonda on Broadway in Garson Kanin’s A Gift of Time. She also appeared in Guy Green’s film Light in the Piazza (1962) that many years later became the basis for Craig Lucas’ and Adam Guettel’s magnificent musical The Light in the Piazza (2005). In 1962 Olivia de Havilland published her semi-autobiographical book, Every Frenchman Has One, about her life in Paris, which subsequently became a bestseller.
In 1964 Olivia de Havilland made two rather extraordinary psychological horror films. The first was Walter Grauman’s Lady in a Cage (1964), which featured a young James Cann. This is really odd 1960s film – and it is stylishly very 1960s, almost psychedelic at times, with the addition of a doco-drama element. The other film was Robert Aldrich’s Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte (1964) with Bette Davis, as well as other ‘old Hollywood’ actors, Joseph Cotton, Agnes Morehead, Mary Astor, and Australian actor Cecil Kellaway. Olivia de Havilland took over the role that Joan Crawford was playing when Crawford became too ill and had to withdraw. This film also features the young Bruce Dern.
Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte is Robert Aldrich’s follow-up to his What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962). As Bette Davis told me (yes – me) Baby Jane was the better of the two films due its script superiority. Still – Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte is a highly entertaining film, with the seemingly innocent Olivia de Havilland being actually as ruthless and cold-blooded as she was at the end of The Heiress.
Sigmund Romberg (1887-1951) is now a relatively neglected musical theatre artist; and yet, once upon a time, particularly in the 1920s, he was amongst the most celebrated of Broadway musical composers The film Deep in My Heart (1954), directed by film musical master Stanley Donen, is a Hollywood ‘musical bio-pic’ based on the life of Sigmund Romberg.
‘Lover, Come Back to Me’ is quite rightly one of the most important and wonderful popular songs from the 20th Century, evident in the many past and modern artists who have recorded their own versions of this beautiful song. Furthermore, there are the thrilling energetic numbers, such as ‘The Drinking Song’ in The Student Prince, ‘The Riff Song’ and ‘The Military Marching Song’ in The Desert Song, and ‘Stouthearted Men’ in The New Moon. It is perhaps difficult for young people to appreciate that when ‘The Drinking Song’ was first performed in 1924 its enormous popularity was almost regarded as revolutionary in ‘Prohibition’ America. It is still a wonderful and powerful ‘show-stopper’.
