The girl with all the gifts – The alluring legacy… | Little White Lies

The girl with all the gifts – The allur­ing lega­cy of Louise Brooks

14 Nov 2016

Close-up portrait of a woman with short dark hair and a contemplative expression, wearing a fur-trimmed coat.
Close-up portrait of a woman with short dark hair and a contemplative expression, wearing a fur-trimmed coat.
How a Kansas-born cho­rus girl turned silent era icon walked away from Hol­ly­wood and became an even big­ger star.

Nobody went to war like Louise Brooks did, the woman whose Hol­ly­wood rebel­lion last­ed for decades. The actress is now cel­e­brat­ed for her sexy, Jazz Age style, her bravu­ra per­for­mances in a few unfor­get­table silent films, and her frank, per­cep­tive writ­ing on the cin­e­ma. But as far as Hol­ly­wood was con­cerned, she nev­er quite made it. In the eyes of the exec­u­tives, she was a cho­rus girl, a star­let, an exile and a has-been, in that order. Now, the ado­ra­tion of cinephiles has made Brooks some­thing big­ger than a star, but 110 years after she was born in Cher­ry­vale, Kansas, her robust bat­tle against the stu­dio sys­tem is still remarkable. 

It is not too wild a leap to sug­gest that the seeds of Brooks’ adult dis­obe­di­ence were sown in her large­ly unsu­per­vised child­hood. Show­ing a pre­co­cious tal­ent for danc­ing, Brooks earned a place in the avant-garde Den­ishawn troupe as a teenag­er, and when the com­pa­ny arrived in New York, she embraced big city life, ditch­ing her hick” accent, and sharp­en­ing her bob hair­cut into that famous black hel­met” with its uncom­pro­mis­ing lines. Thrown out of the troupe for break­ing deco­rum, Brooks turned to Broad­way. By the time a cou­ple of film stu­dios took notice in 1925, she was a 19-year-old cho­rus girl with a rep­u­ta­tion for par­ty­ing, and a string of high-pro­file lovers includ­ing Char­lie Chap­lin; or as her first inter­view in Pho­to­play mag­a­zine styled it: one of the dec­o­ra­tive daugh­ters of the New York night life.”

That Pho­to­play inter­view, from April 1926, hints at naugh­ti­ness it can’t name with the strap line, Cer­tain­ly it’s true that a cho­rus girl learns a lot about act­ing’. More innu­en­do: Brooks was lay­ing in bed in her Park Avenue apart­ment because she had been up ear­li­er horse­back rid­ing,” and a pic­ture of her in a leo­tard reveals sev­er­al of the rea­sons that have fig­ured in her suc­cess.” The piece opens with Brooks, who would become known for read­ing Schopen­hauer on set, mak­ing a pre­ten­tious state­ment about art, but the reporter, Ruth Water­bury, shuts her down, say­ing: Be your­self”. For Hol­ly­wood, Brooks’ sex appeal, rather than her intel­lect, was all that was required.

Two people, man in a tuxedo and woman in an evening dress, sit together in black and white.

Brooks start­ed work for Para­mount at the east coast stu­dios, keep­ing up that semi-scan­dalous lifestyle. Even when she mar­ried film direc­tor Eddie Suther­land and his work took him to Hol­ly­wood, she stayed behind for as long as she could resist the stu­dio pres­sure. The most reveal­ing moment in that Pho­to­play inter­view is her dec­la­ra­tion of war”. Brooks announces casu­al­ly that although she has been slat­ed to appear in anoth­er WC Fields pic­ture she has no inten­tion of doing so: I don’t want to play a part where I race around a fun­ny man all the time. And I won’t.”

On this occa­sion, the stu­dio won and Brooks appeared in the film after all, but a pat­tern of behav­iour was set. As she told Kevin Brown­low: I was always late, but just too damn stun­ning for them to fire me.” For Brooks, self-deter­mi­na­tion trumped celebri­ty. She nev­er took an order as a com­mand if she could help it, espe­cial­ly not from BP Schul­berg at Para­mount, whom she hat­ed until the end of her life. She told Water­bury she would like a career like Glo­ria Swan­sons, but it was not the old­er woman’s star­dom she admired, but her mox­ie: She has gone ahead and got just what she want­ed.” From speak­ing her mind to mag­a­zines to her casu­al atti­tude to her mar­riage to Suther­land, Brooks refused to play the Hol­ly­wood game. Although she was elec­tric on screen, Brooks was rarely grant­ed a lead­ing role, play­ing bad girls and sis­ters instead. She was passed over for roles that could have suit­ed her, most obvi­ous­ly the lead in Show­girl, an adap­ta­tion of the Dix­ie Dugan com­ic strip that had been mod­elled on her in her Broad­way days, gleam­ing black bob and all.

Even after she had excelled as the roman­tic lead in William Wellman’s Beg­gars of Life, a part that required dress­ing in drag and endur­ing a remote shoot with a boor­ish all-male cast and crew, Para­mount refused to raise her wages at con­tract-renew­al time. So she skipped town to Berlin to make the first of two bril­liant, career-defin­ing films with a direc­tor she had nev­er heard of, GW Pab­st. The first was Pandora’s Box and the sec­ond was Diary of a Lost Girl, in both Brooks plays muti­nous and hedo­nis­tic young women, abused by old­er men. She has the lead role, and she daz­zles, prov­ing exact­ly what Hol­ly­wood was miss­ing out on – although cen­sor­ship meant no one in Amer­i­ca would see the films in their prop­er state.

Her Hol­ly­wood bridges were almost all burned when she refused to return to dub dia­logue on her final Para­mount movie (Schul­berg spread the rumour that her voice was unsuit­able), but in the 1930s she did brave a final stint with the stu­dios. The sto­ry was the same: miss­ing out on the big roles, she was reduced to blink-and-miss-it eye can­dy” instead. Brooks’ wilder­ness peri­od fol­lowed: a return to Kansas and some lost years in New York. But in the 1950s, her Euro­pean films were redis­cov­ered by crit­ics and she was revered, final­ly, as an actress. At the end of that decade, when she was begin­ning her new career as a writer and cin­e­mat­ic celebri­ty, Brooks tack­led the stu­dio sys­tem in an astrin­gent essay for Sight & Sound magazine.

Gish and Gar­bo: the exec­u­tive war on stars” is Brooks’ revenge on the stu­dio boss­es who demand­ed a def­er­ence she was inca­pable of, and the mag­a­zines (Pho­to­play in par­tic­u­lar) who did their bid­ding. Her provoca­tive analy­sis details the delib­er­ate mis­han­dling of her con­tem­po­raries’ careers, at a time when stu­dios were begin­ning to fear that stars, not stu­dios, were the ones who cap­tured the audience’s hearts. When female stars became too pow­er­ful, they were side­lined for new, younger, more bid­d­a­ble star­lets – the type Brooks instinc­tive­ly resist­ed becom­ing. The result, accord­ing to Brooks? Hol­ly­wood pro­duc­ers were left with their babes and a back­wash of old-men stars, watch­ing the lights go out in one pic­ture house after anoth­er across the coun­try.” Three decades after her argu­ment with Hol­ly­wood began, Brooks claimed the final word.

Pamela Hutchin­son is the author of a forth­com­ing BFI Film Clas­sic on Pandora’s Box.

You might like