Three Silent Classics by Josef von Sternberg on DVD
Empire of Dreams: The Epic Life of Cecil B. DeMille
Furious Love: A Book Review
Kim Novak Stars in the 1957 Biopic Jeanne Eagels
Fantomas: The Complete Saga on DVD
Alexander Kluge's Part-Time Work of a Domestic Slave on DVD

An Interview with Marc Eliot About His New Biography, JIMMY STEWART

Marc Eliot is the acclaimed author of Cary Grant: A Biography and Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince: A Biography. His current biography, Jimmy Stewart, will be available from Harmony Books on October 10th. To see some images from the book and from private collections, Click Here

TCM: With so many books currently in print on Jimmy Stewart, what made you decide to write another one? What do you think is unique about yours?

Marc Eliot: While it is true that there are other biographies of Jimmy Stewart, I actually found less than I did about Cary Grant when I wrote his life story. I consider myself 1) a writer, 2) a film critic and historian and 3)a biographer, with the order somewhat interchangeable. Without being too specific, I have to say that none of the previous biographies of Jimmy Stewart seemed to me to be very well written, which tends to crudify the subject matter. Most of them, as well, did not have a lot of film scholarship in them. When I wrote "Cary Grant," I was pleased that Molly Haskell, a writer/critic I respect, pointed out how unusual it was to see nearly every important movie of Grant's broken down and integrated into his life and art. To me, writing about a movie star without going into the work, is like writing about Picasso and not dealing with his great painting, or, perhaps a better example, writing about Chaplin and leaving out the Little Tramp. In my work, I try to incorporate what it is about the work that makes us want to know about the life. I choose subjects that I feel I understand and am moved by, and lives that have not been sufficiently explored in terms of biography. In the case of Jimmy Stewart, despite the number of biographies, there did not seem to me that the story was sufficiently told. When I interviewed his daughter, she agreed that so far no one had gotten even close. In my view the books are either sloppily written, replete with misinformation, the films are insufficiently examined, and Jimmy's life is not properly put into the context of the times that he lived in, the times his film work represented. Therefore, I believe my book is "new," in the sense that I have never written about Jimmy Stewart extensively, and that in long view of my career, it is justified both as a biography and as a piece of writing.

TCM: In your book you note that Look Magazine named Jimmy Stewart as the most popular movie star in Hollywood in 1955 and that it was the first time he had ever been at the top of the list, replacing John Wayne. Was he really more popular at that stage of his career than the early phase when he had scored hits with You Can't Take It With You, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Destry Rides Again and The Philadelphia Story?

Marc Eliot: Good question. I think the audiences as well as the industry were markedly different. Jimmy wasn't really a star when he made Mr. Smith, although he had done well in You Can't Take It With You. He was a name, not a star. The film was really a "Capra" movie, not a Stewart movie. Destry Rides Again I would rank as one step below the greatest Jimmy Stewart films, for a number of reasons I won't go into here in depth. The Philadelphia Story most decidedly, and deservedly, belongs to Grant and Hepburn. Jimmy's second wind, as it were, his postwar period, saw the majority of his greatest films, beginning with It's a Wonderful Lif, the Anthony Mann cycle, and of course the three Hitchcock's -- Rear Window, The Man Who Knew Too Much, and Vertigo. Combined with the fact that Hollywood was in a major transition -- new, younger stars like Brando, Dean and Clift were in vogue, while older stars like Wayne (in particular) were seen more than ever as genre actors (Wayne's mythic cowboy persona as an extension of John Ford's westerns). Jimmy, then, I believe, had a peak of popularity due to the extraordinary run of great films he made in that period, and the fading away of other stars, due to age and changing tastes. Whether he was sucked to the top in the vacuum, or audiences appreciated his films (Rear Window more than The Searchers, say), the fact remains he went to number one.

TCM: In your research, how do you substantiate or find records or documentation in support of anecdotes like Stewart losing his virginity to Ginger Rogers?

Marc Eliot: Jimmy actually talked about it, as did Fonda. Not to me, of course, but to others, several of whom wrote about it either for magazines or in their own memoirs. There is sufficient research to substantiate it. In this book I tried to be very careful about not making the mistakes of others, and repeating false claims. This one stands.

TCM: Although Jimmy Stewart was never as politically outspoken as John Wayne, he shared the same conservative views, didn't he?

Marc Eliot: Indeed. He may have even been more conservative. As the book illustrates, Jimmy was a key factor in Ronald Reagan's resurrection, back into mainstream entertainment after being relegated to doing an opening comedy/song and dance act in Las Vegas, and later on campaigned vigorously for Reagan for Governor of California and then for the White House. In the Eighties, Mr. and Mrs. Stewart were frequent visitors to the Washington Reagans. Jimmy's support of Vietnam caused severely strained family ties with one of his sons, and also led him to want to make certain movies, like Strategic Air Command and The Pride of St. Louis. Unlike others, Capra, for instance, and Fonda, Jimmy never took public stands on sensitive political issues (other than attending war rallies prior to and, as a soldier, during World War Two). In fact, one of the reasons I believe he distanced himself from Capra after It's a Wonderful Life was the trouble the director got into with HUAC and other congressional authorities during the Cold War, was due to Capra's left-wing leanings. It also affected his friendship with the quite liberal Henry Fonda. I don't think Jimmy Stewart saw the deeper implications of Mr. Smith, nor anticipated the problems Capra had with that film, particularly with an outraged congress. He and Capra made It's a Wonderful Life out of a certain desperation -- both needed work -- but when the film failed at the box-office they never worked together again.

TCM: Do you think that the more neurotic and emotional sides of Stewart on display in the Hitchcock and Mann films were the result of the directors recognizing that quality in the actor and exploiting it or do you think it was more Stewart's decision to challenge himself more with complex parts?

Marc Eliot: I think it was more a director's vision. Hitchcock, in particular, once said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that Cary Grant always played the character he (Hitchcock) wanted to be, but that Jimmy Stewart played the one he feared he was. Interesting. Mann was somebody Jimmy was assigned to, and stayed together through so many films essentially because they made money. Jimmy tried several times to soften the Mann blows, with films like The Glenn Miller Story. Which is not to say that Jimmy was unaware that the projected image he had in film had not changed. On an instinctive level, I think Jimmy found in Hitchcock much the same that Grant did -- someone who knew how to make the inner emotions a character felt visible on screen. It is unthinkable, to me, at least, to imagine Hitchcock directing a stage play. He was, like John Ford, inherently cinematic at a very complex and beautiful level, and Jimmy was the kind of actor who, in a sense, didn't get in the way of what directors, good or bad, wanted to get out of him. I know in talking to Kim Novak about the making of Vertigo, there was very little in the way of discussion about what the film's "story" was, between Jimmy Stewart and Hitchcock. The power of Jimmy's performance in that film, in all of the Hitchcocks he made, indeed in most of his great movies, is a filtration process; what I believe to be is the essence of film acting. If you take the four great directors that Jimmy worked for (in my opinion) -- Hitchcock, Mann, Capra, and Ford, you will find four very different, and very identifiable (director-specific) Jimmy Stewarts. One final word on this. Andrew Sarris talks about the value of film criticism that is not based on a that-film-only take. In other words, the more one sees of a director (and an actor) the better one can understand the body of work, the contextual road map of the art.

TCM: Is there a film performance Stewart gave that you felt deserved an Oscar® nomination but was completely ignored by the Academy?

Jimmy wasn't nominated for Vertigo and I feel that, by far, it is his greatest film performance. By far.

TCM: Like Henry Fonda and others before him, Stewart got his start on the stage but do you think he would have been just as happy in his career as a Broadway star or was he always intent on being a movie actor?

Marc Eliot: I don't think he thought about it that much. He was, more or less, "drafted" to Hollywood by MGM. I will say this, however. I don't think he would have been one of the major stars of the Twentieth Century if he had remained only a Broadway actor. And, by the way, almost every major Broadway star "went Hollywood," because that was where the real money was, and the national, and international fame. I can think of very few who refused the opportunity when they were given it. I believe actors who desire to practice the "pure" art of stage acting are in reality few and far between.

TCM: Stewart apparently liked to make 16mm home movies as a hobby. What happened to that footage? Did you have access to it for your research?

Marc Eliot: I believe the daughter has most of it. I saw very little, available in other documentaries and in one or two libraries. I might add that he was not alone in this hobby. Hollywood actors of his day were very much like actors today who walk around with videocams and digital cams. Not all that different or unique.

TCM: Why do you think It's A Wonderful Life was a boxoffice failure at the time yet is such a beloved film today and considered one of Stewart's greatest films?

Marc Eliot: As I state in the book (after interviewing Frank Capra's son), the film had two major problems. The first was that it was an independent film, made by Liberty Pictures, Frank Capra's post-war independent production company. Therefore, it competed with all the major studios' releases. And, although they did get some distribution, there was no real incentive for studios to back a competing product, especially at a time when the studios were beginning to flounder, and there was an informal but vigorous movement among them to quash independent productions. The second reason was that it was released just before Christmas, and generally thought to be a "Christmas" picture; a holiday release. It is most decidedly not that, but it was hurt because holiday pictures need to gross a lot of money in a short period of time. Once the new year comes, they're by and large finished. That's more or less what happened at the time. Coupled with the fact that Capra was not all that well-liked in Hollywood, for a number of reasons, the film really didn't have much of a chance. It has since been discovered by a younger, more movie-savvy audience, beginning with its now annual TV playings. This audience was really the first college-educated "film school" generation, and recognized both the greatness of the Capra technique and the simply wonderful acting performances in the film. Television is the reason the film lives on. As to it being one of Jimmy's greatest performances, I would agree that it is, but I would also remind people that not a lot of Jimmy's films are seen that often. Fortunately, TCM plays most of them, but films like You Can't Take it With You, the Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Anatomy of a Murder just aren't that often revived. Cary Grant's movies are far more popular, mostly because of the enduring popularity of the directors he worked with, and therefore it's easier for audiences to get an overview of his work. In sum, then, among the Jimmy Stewart films that people see most often, It's a Wonderful Life certainly ranks among the greatest.

TCM: In your Stewart biography, it was news to me that Louis B. Mayer "had a private brothel built within walking distance of the studio's front gate." Was this typical of other studios as well as a means to monitor and control the sexual appetites of the studio's leading men?

Marc Eliot: In one fashion or another, all the majors kept tight rein on their stars. They didn't want the men getting into trouble, a la Flynn, nor their female stars ruined by scandal. One of the reasons the Sunset Strip became a playground for actors and actresses in the Thirties was because it had no local authorities -- it was an unzoned mile or two where the LAPD had not real authority. For the most part, it is safe to say that no one at any studio who was highly competitive, excessively narcissistic and extremely motivated had any trouble having what we might call "fun." The studios' monitoring and regulatory measures, including to "morals" clause in talent contract was essentially an economic, rather than a moral directive. The studios did what they had to do to insure their stars, and in many cases that meant more than taking out life insurance policies.

TCM: Among the many films in Stewart's career are a handful of odd choices, such as Ice Follies of 1939, The Greatest Show on Earth and Dear Brigitte. Why, for instance, do you think he agreed to appear in Cecil B. DeMille's circus epic The Greatest Show on Earth at that point in his career when it was a minor role with very little dialogue?

Marc Eliot: Jimmy often talked about wanting to learn about circus life. He had had a very brief flirtation with traveling road-show style entertainment when he was a boy (his best friend was a magician and they spent a summer or two doing shows from town to town), and it is also believed that he needed the money (although Winchester '73 made him a millionaire, that money did not arrive all at once). He was still searching for a big hit and felt the DeMille film might be it. And he was right, at least as far as the Academy was concerned. One note readers might find interesting is that Jimmy worked with the great Emmett Kelly to prepare for his character. Beyond that, it's hard to say. In those days actors were offered roles, they either took them or they didn't, within the confines of what their respective studios would let them do. Finally, Jimmy was very supportive of DeMille's politics, and this film was made during a period where DeMille was at the forefront of the anti-Communist and anti-Union movements in Hollywood. He liked DeMille and that meant a lot in those days.

TCM: After Stewart had Anthony Mann removed from directing Night Passage, did they ever speak to each other again? Was it a bitter break that was never resolved? After collaborating so closely on some of the greatest westerns of the fifties, it seems an incomplete ending to the story.

Marc Eliot: They spoke, they were polite, Jimmy had less of a problem with Mann offscreen than Mann did with Jimmy. Remember, Winchester '73 had made Jimmy Stewart a millionaire, and he was grateful for that, but he just couldn't endure all the physical work that Mann demanded, and at some point decided it was personal on Mann's part. But Jimmy was forever the gentleman and would not make Mann an "enemy." He just kept his distance, as was his wont.

TCM: How long did it take you to research and then write JIMMY STEWART?

Marc Eliot: I began researching this book while I was writing Cary Grant, as there were several places where people, events and movies overlapped. Altogether I'd say three to four years. Hard to really pick a start. I saw Vertigo when I was eleven years old, so who really knows when these things begin to take root.

TCM: Which film archives and sources were the most helpful to you in the course of your research?

Marc Eliot: Without question, talking to Jimmy's daughter Kelly, was key. So were my interviews with Kim Novak. Neither one had ever really spoken biographically about Jimmy Stewart before. While I was at Columbia (University), I studied film at the doctoral level with Andrew Sarris, and with his permission recorded most of the lectures he gave. Those tapes have proven invaluable to me through the years, in helping me to understand what it is about movies that makes me want to continue to write about them. The Herrick Academy Library in Los Angeles has always been an invaluable source for me. I would say they have the best film-related archives in the world.

TCM: What are your own personal favorites among Stewart's filmography? Is there a lesser known title or one which you feel has been unjustly neglected by moviegoers and critics?

Marc Eliot: I love Vertigo, Rear Window, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, It's a Wonderful Life, and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance the most. I would say, by and large, the Mann westerns are the most overlooked, simply because westerns of the '50s are all smothered by High Noon and Shane, and, maybe, to the more esoteric film viewers, The Searchers. The Mann westerns come out of a career (Mann's) that was really '40s noir, and the use of Jimmy Stewart in them becomes somewhat ironic (especially when one remembers his first western, Destry Rides Again, which is decidedly non-noirish stylistically). The Mann westerns are the purest and most fascinating view we have of Jimmy's post-war change-over into a deeper, darker, character actor. They anticipate Vertigo, and are also quite illustrative examples of the uniqueness of '50s American film-making.

Interviewed by Jeff Stafford