The Myth of the Roscoe 'Fatty' Arbuckle Ban
The Myth of the Fatty Ban
The 1920s had barely begun when a
real life situation developed that would lead to the first officially announced
ban in Australia on an actor and his entire output, past, present and future, as
opposed to a single film. Incredibly the ban had nothing to do with on-screen
horror, instead the ban was enforced upon one of the most popular cinematic
comedians of the silent era and, even more incredibly, despite the ban was
official, it was also widely ignored.
Roscoe Arbuckle, better known to the
movie going public by his nickname, ‘Fatty[i]’,
was one of the most popular of the early silent comedians. He worked with the
greats of the era, Mabel Normand, Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton
and acted as mentor to the young Bob Hope. His popularity was reflected in his
three year contract with Paramount Pictures which would see him earn a whopping
$1,000,000 a year. Arbuckle was box office gold, only behind Chaplin for sheer
money making capacity in Australia in the early 1920s. Arbuckle was featured in
newspapers, on film magazines and even in cartoon strips; his girth was his
selling point, combined with incredibly agility. His comedic timing was
impeccable and by mid-1921 there was an Arbuckle movie being screened somewhere
at a cinema at any given time in Australia.
FATTY ARBUCKLE CHARGED WITH MURDER
'FATTY' CHARGED WITH MURDER
A CINEMA SENSATION! ACTRESS' TRAGIC
DEATH
ROSCOE ARBUCKLE ARRESTED
Suite 1221 of St. Francis Hotel shortly after Arbuckle's party |
Arbuckle was front page news from the
12th of September, 1921 when news broke of his arrest for
rape. At the same time as newspapers were gleefully advertising his films
Brewster’s Millions (1921), The Bell Boy (1918), and Good
Night, Nurse (1918), the latter two films co-starring Buster Keaton, Arbuckle
was being arraigned and charged with the rape and murder of a young, would-be
actress, Virgina Rappe.
Rappe had died after a particularly
wild party held in Arbuckle’s hotel room in early September, 1921 and the newspapers instantly began reporting her death was due to Arbuckle’s weight damaging her
internal organs as he was raping her on his bed. Even more salaciously, the
inference was that Arbuckle had penetrated Rappe with a Coke (or champagne)
bottle, thus causing her internal injuries.
Even worse for Arbuckle, the party
was one where alcohol had flowed freely (in a time when America was firmly in
the grip of Prohibition) and Arbuckle was a married man, giving those who were
morally outraged more ammunition. In Australia, as with America, the arrest of
Arbuckle and the subsequent trials were widely reported in newspapers and even
before he could be found innocent or guilty, indeed even before the case could
reach the courts; housewives groups were calling for a ban on his movies on
moral grounds.
Virginia Rappe |
History now shows that Arbuckle was
totally innocent of all charges – the rape of Rappe by Arbuckle, or anyone else that day, simply did not occur, nor
did the story of the Coke bottle. Yet Arbuckle was accused of rape (and murder)
by a friend of Rappes, named Maude Delmont, for her own reasons, and duly framed
by an over eager District Attorney, Matthew Brady[ii],
looking to make his mark. The suggestions of an injury due to a bottle, or ice,
came from Rappe’s manager, who was not present at the time, nor did he see
Rappe’s body. Arbuckle later testified that both he, and others present in the
room, including women, had used ice to rub Rappe’s stomach and forehead in an
attempt to calm her down. Matters were not helped when one of Rappe’s lovers,
film director Henry ‘Pathe’ Lerhman, began a media campaign against Arbuckle[iii].
It’s also been strongly suggested that Arbuckle was sacrificed by the film
industry as a whole in an attempt to introduce tighter standards and censorship
in the United States.
Rappe died of peritonitis, due to a
combination of pre-existing health conditions, including chronic cystitis,
which was aggravated by drinking alcohol, venereal disease and an alleged
botched backyard abortion. The doctor who performed the autopsy found no
evidence of rape, or any sexual activity leading up to her death, but noted
that her general health was poor at the time. Outside of Delmont who, herself,
wasn’t in the room at the time of Rappe’s collapse, nobody present witnessed,
or heard, any sexual assault. As it stands, Arbuckle’s only crime was being in
the same suite as Rappe when she fell ill. Her penchant for heavy drinking of
‘bootleg’ booze, Prohibition or not, wouldn’t have helped her stay alive. It
made no difference that Arbuckle was ultimately found not guilty and exonerated
after three trials (the first two trials ended in mistrials), his name was
poison. This was largely due to William Randolph Hearst, who, sensing a story
made sure that his tabloids reported the more sensational rumors from the party
at the cost of the actual truth[iv].
Arbuckle was tried by the media, found guilty and executed, career wise.
Roscoe Arbuckle's mug shot |
The calls for Arbuckle to be banned
began immediately after the news of his arrest was made public. The Queensland
manager for Paramount Pictures wrote to newspapers informing the public that
all Arbuckle films were to be withdrawn by exhibition as quickly as possible,
but included the caveat that, should Arbuckle be cleared, those same films
would be put back into the cinemas[v].
Housewives groups around the country stepped up the pressure with letter
writing campaigns to newspapers calling for a ban.
Even as talk was happening in regards
to the banning of Arbuckle films coming into the country (The Sky Pilot and
The Trombone Player), Arbuckle’s earlier, Keystone era films with
Charlie Chaplin and Chester Conklin were being dusted off and quietly placed
back into circulation where they thrived. No matter what his crimes were, real
or imagined, no matter how many community groups, parents groups and social
activists denounced him, Arbuckle was still highly popular with the cinema
going public.
As far as Australia was concerned,
Arbuckle’s films were, unofficially, banned as of 5 July, 1922, when the
Cinematograph Exhibitors Association formally announced a ban on his pictures[vi].
This ban was debated in the newspapers, but those defending Arbuckle were in
the minority. The question of the appropriateness of his films being shown were
raised in the House of Representatives, with Federal Minister Edmund Jowett
calling on the Minister for Trades and Customs[vii]
to take immediate steps to prevent his films from being exhibited. The Minister
in question, Arthur Rodgers, then took the matter up with the Chief Censor.
The Chief Censor, Professor Wallace,
duly responded[viii]
that importers and exhibitors had been contacted and no more Arbuckle films
would be brought into the country. Further to this, movie houses intending on
showing Arbuckle films would be told, in no uncertain terms, that such
screenings were not to happen. “No films featuring ‘Fatty’ Arbuckle have
entered this country since the notorious trial of that actor,” Rodgers told the
House of Representatives, “the pictures now being exhibited came in before the
trial, and, therefore, the Censor cannot be rightly taken to task in regard to
them. In any case, the Commonwealth Government can exercise supervision over
the picture-show business only by means of its Customs powers. If it is thought
that action should be taken in regard to the films already admitted, it will be
for the State authorities to move on the matter, they having complete power to
do so. Since the honorable member's first question on the subject, I have seen
the Chief Censor, and he has been in communication with the exhibitors
concerned. I have reason to believe that, in recognition of the feeling of the
country, these films will be withdrawn from exhibition[ix].”
Despite the Chief Censor and now the
Federal Government giving every indication of a ban being in place, more was
needed for the many community groups, who were beginning to question Arbuckle’s
innocence, with claims that he had expended his vast fortune on buying justice.
On the same day as Rodgers addressed
Parliament, the Victorian Cinematograph Exhibitors Association took out an ad[x]
in Melbourne newspapers stating that they would not be showing any Arbuckle
film, new or old, in any of their cinemas across the state. The ad listed 75
separate theatres who promised that Arbuckle was finished on the screen in
their cinemas. Once Victoria made the public announcement other states quickly
followed suit. In South Australia, a group of exhibitors gathered all of the
Arbuckle films they could find, carried them off to nearby Glenelg Beach on 8 October, 1922 and
set fire to them[xi].
Thick, acrid black smoke could be clearly seen from Adelaide’s CBD, 11
kilometres away. The heat was described as intense, which wasn’t very
surprising as the film stock contained a large amount of nitrate which would
have went up the second flame was applied. The smouldering mound of silver
nitrate was left on the sands to wash out to the Southern Ocean.
“Mr. Bice[xii],
the Chief Secretary, has announced that the Government has prohibited the
screening in South Australia of films featuring Roscoe ("Fatty")
Arbuckle,” announced newspapers in South Australia. “The Government, said Mr.
Bice, would ban the presentation of programmes on which appeared personalities
whose records were better forgotten. It was determined to see that clean and
wholesome pictures were exhibited, and anything objectionable would be
forbidden.[xiii]”
"Virginia Rappe (The girl Fatty Arbuckle has been accused of murdering)" - Tasteless advertising, Gundagi Times (NSW), 6 January, 1922 |
Feelings were mixed in Western
Australia. While agreeing, in principle, with the ban, it was left to
exhibitors to decide if it was to be enforced. The Western Australian stance
was best summed up in the Daily News. “While it was left to the patrons
of picture shows in Victoria to decide whether films in which the notorious
Roscoe Arbuckle was featured should be tolerated after the Archbishop. Dr.
Lees, had uttered a strong protest, the producers in New South Wales banned the
pictures from their theatres. To their credit the producers in this State have
not, so far, offended public, taste by making an attempt to re-introduce
Arbuckle. At a social function on Thursday night last, at which the leading
picture show managers, were assembled, Mr. J. J. Simons, M.L.A who, seemingly,
cannot see anything wrong in anyone or anything American, counseled the producers
to show Arbuckle pictures[xiv].”
“An Arbuckle film, the first to be
exhibited in Australia since the revelations in connection with the private
life of the fat comedian, was withdrawn from a leading Melbourne theatre
recently, after a couple of showings, in deference to a howl that arose from
pulpits, platforms and a section of the press,” wrote the Call. “During
the controversy much was said of the immorality of Arbuckle, and strangely
enough most of the community seemed to be on the side of the suppressionists.
Present writer doesn't propose to enter into the rights and wrongs of the
argument unless it comes West, but it is interesting to note that while
Arbuckle is banned, Oscar Wilde is now permitted in the best societies — as a
matter of fact every amateur dramatic club that fancies itself at all has a
shot at an Oscar Wilde production. Our contention isn't that Wilde should be
banned, but if the morals of the man and not the quality of his productions
call for suppression, aren't there quite enough scandals associated with Wilde?
And if we go further, haven't serious reflections been cast on the moral
character of Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, Horatio Nelson, and quite a number of
Australian Premiers? If we are to outlaw a man's works because of undesirable
traits in his personal character, we should at least treat them all alike. And
if we did that, our list of historic idols would be cut-down probably by
two-thirds[xv].”
The ban on Arbuckle came mainly in
the form of advertising censorship. His image wasn’t used in ads for his films,
but his name was, and the bulk of his films attracted the scantest of reviews,
but these reviews were all positive. This went against the general media
reportage of Arbuckle. Almost every article that was written about him from
this point onwards mentioned Rappe and the murder/rape charges. Arbuckle’s
divorces, his failure to find work, his financial state and the status of the
bans were all newsworthy, even if the continued success of his films were not.
But the ban was, largely, a myth. For
all of the public fury and hype, Arbuckle films were still being shown at
cinemas, both in suburban and country areas, while the trials were happening.
This was in direct contrast to the reports of a ban, and the activities of
various religious and social groups who were busily burning and destroying
Arbuckle films and merchandise. Virginia Rappe’s movies were also dusted off
and, even there, she was linked to Arbuckle. One tasteless such ad, for A
Twilight Baby (1920) labeled Rappe as, “The girl Fatty Arbuckle has been
accused of murdering[xvi]”.
States that showed Arbuckle films
included Queensland, Western Australia and Northern Territory. New South Wales[xvii],
Victoria[xviii],
Tasmania and South Australia banned Arbuckle, but the ban was not as widespread
as people thought. In New South Wales the ban only existed on any new Arbuckle
film coming into the country, films that were already here were shown, after a
few months had passed. This happened in most states, with Victoria, South Australia
and Tasmania upholding their bans until after Arbuckle had died.
Victoria bans Arbuckle - The Argus (Vic), 29 September, 1922 |
Screenings of Arbuckle’s short silent
movies would continue well into the 1930s[xix],
and well after he passed away. The reasons why his films were shown is not a
mystery. He was a very effective screen comedian. Many of his co-stars, notably
Chaplin and Keaton, were still popular with the public and, more importantly,
his movies made money. Admittedly they didn’t make as much as they did before
the controversy, but they could still be counted on to bring in children who
didn’t care what Arbuckle might have done, or not, off-screen. And that was the
important part. Arbuckle’s movies were shown at children’s matinées, usually as
the second feature to western and serials.
In 1927, five years after the ban was
announced, moves were made to formally un-ban Arbuckle films, to no avail. The
lifting of the ban would have been a formality as, by now, his films were again
being advertised in newspapers as coming attractions[xx].
Despite the ban Arbuckle was still a
subject of public interest, sometimes for the wrong reasons. On February 7,
1929, Independent Australian Party Minister Walter Marks was detailing his
visits to both England and America, where he studied the film industry. In an
interjection, Marks was asked by Labor’s George Yates if he’d taken the time
out to, “…visit Fatty Arbuckle”. Marks replied, “I thank the honorable member
for that interjection, and am pleased to say that in the United States of
America, as in Australia, if a man is so unfortunate as to be down and out, his
friends make an effort to lift him out of the mire. Fatty Arbuckle, mainly
through the assistance rendered by his former associates, is now conducting a
smart restaurant at Hollywood, and is making good.[xxi]”
South Australia burns Arbuckle. Films burnt on Glenelg Beach by exhibitors on October 8, 1922. The Observor (SA), 21 October, 1922, |
In February, 1933, the Truth
in Sydney decided to dredge up the scandal once more, this time as a new
Arbuckle talking feature, Hey, Pop! was due for release. “SCREEN FIEND
IS BACK,” screamed the headline. “Sleeping Censor Fails In His Job. Roscoe
'Fatty' Arbuckle, salacious scoundrel of the screen, has staged a comeback. The
man, whose immoral orgies shocked the world and cost beautiful Virginia Rappe
her life, is appearing in a city talkie. And this cruel and rapacious pervert
is hailed in the advertisements of the daily Press as ‘the most popular man on
earth.’”
Despite the broadsheets name, the Truth
reported anything but the truth for the bulk of its life. The Truth was
built around reportage of scandal, often dismissing the facts, such as
Arbuckle’s acquittal and his presence on screens for the decade since the
scandal, and painted a scurrilous picture of Arbuckle that was anything but
reality as they dredged up the scandal.
Back in 'Frisco in 1921 Arbuckle, the
mountain of fat and flesh, revealed himself as a monster of lust as well as of
avoirdupois. In the early morning after a night of drink and vice in his rich
apartments, Virginia Rappe, the famous screen beauty, was killed. Arbuckle was
seized by the police and held on a murder charge, and what the detectives
discovered shocked the world. Virginia Rappe had been plied with champagne
until she was in a condition of mental stupor. She had lost sense and chastity
and thereupon was seized by this devilish 'comedian.' And then in a fashion
that made the California Grand Jury shudder, this foolish beauty was treated by
Arbuckle in an inhuman manner. The woman's cries of pain and fear were not
heard above the bellowing’s of the remainder of the besotted revelers.
And now, in the enlightened days of
1933, the Australian film censor permits a picture by this scoundrel to enter
the Commonwealth and be advertised as a 'welcome back to the famous screen
comedian.' Children In particular are Invited to attend the theatre and witness
the pranks of Arbuckle. If this man had been an Australian crook and
sex-killer, would the Censor have allowed him to appear on stage or screen? And
would any Australian who committed anything like the unexampled lust parade of
Arbuckle be allowed to dump talkies into America? Our sleeping censor should
revive from his mental trance for a sufficient time to admit his error of
judgment, recall this picture, and dump it back to Hollywood from whence it
came[xxii].
The Truth’s wild ravings made
zero difference. Running for 18 minutes, Hey, Pop! (Warner Brothers,
1932) was duly released and was placed as a supporting feature. It didn’t set
the country on fire, but proved popular enough to continue running well into
the 1930s.
Officially the ban remained in place
until Arbuckle died in July 1933 and even after that date his films were not to
be released for film revivals or to television until the 1970s. Sadly, even in
death, Arbuckle was remembered, in Australia, as being a rapist[xxiii].
Despite scandals involving cinema and
actors that had come before[xxiv],
and would come after, the Arbuckle ban was the first and, to date, only time in
Australia that an actor’s entire output was banned, even if that ban wasn’t as
widespread, or enforced as rigidly, as people believed. But the real
ramifications of the mythical Australia-wide Arbuckle ban would be felt for
years to come and would be referenced in the future when other bans were introduced.
[i] Arbuckle hated
the nick-name ‘Fatty’. He’d generally refuse to answer to it, instead reminding
people, in a quiet, but polite voice, that his name was Roscoe.
[ii] "District Attorney
Matthew Brady ... must have been beside himself. An intensely ambitious man, he
planned to run for governor. Here presented to him in the most sensational
terms, was the scandal of the century-an apparent open and shut case." –
Kevin Brownlow, The Pioneers. HarperCollins Publishers Ltd. 1979.
[iii] Indeed it has
often been suggested that Rappe was either about to undergo yet another
backyard abortion, or had just had it, to rid herself of Lerhman’s baby.
[iv] Hearst
was gratified by the profits he accrued during the Arbuckle scandal, and later
said that it had "sold more newspapers than any event since the sinking of
the Lusitania." Felix, Wanda (Fall 1995). "Fatty". The Review of
Arts, Literature, Philosophy and the Humanities
[xvii] Not Here.
Evening News (NSW), 23 December, 1922. “Still Banned in NSW. Arbuckle films are
still banned in N.S.W. Mr. Hicks, managing director of paramount films in
Australia, said today that he had no intention of releasing Arbuckle pictures
in Australia. The public had shown that Arbuckle was “in bad” and while the
feeling existed his films were to be banned.”
[xviii] Arbuckle Films
Banned. Maitland Daily Mercury (NSW), 28 September, 1922. “The Victorian Cinema
Exhibitors Association has declared not to exhibit Arbuckle films”
[xix] Arbuckle’s
silent comedies were being shown at cinemas as late as 1954 when a travelling road
show of Chaplin, Arbuckle, Lloyd and various Keystone Kops comedies was being
shown in country cinemas.
[xx] As an example,
the Brisbane Courier (QLD), 11 August 1928. “Fatty Arbuckle appears with
Charlie Chaplin in "A Quiet Life." at the Majestic Theatre, and is
his old 18 stone self. The picture is full of the splendid comedy, and shows
these two famous comedians at their best.”
[xxiii] Too Willing Starlet Set
New Low In Publicity & Necklines. The Mirror (NSW), 17 April, 1954. In
talking about scandals in Hollywood, the following was written, “Not so lucky
were rapist Fatty Arbuckle, drunk Laurence Tierney, and Lila Leeds.”
[xxiv] Silent film
scandals that did not result in bans, either official or unofficial, include
the Olive Thomas drug overdose death due to husband Jack Pickford’s own drug
abuse, Wallace Reid’s death due to drug addiction and Mary Miles Minter and
Mabel Normand being named as persons of interest in director William Taylor
Desmond’s murder. Golden Age scandals such as Errol Flynn’s rape allegations,
Robert Mitchum’s incarceration for marijuana possession, through to modern day
scandals such as Roman Polanski’s drug fuelled rape of a 13 year old girl and
his fleeing America, to Woody Allen’s alleged seduction of his underage adopted
step-daughter and allegations of sexual abuse and Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitic rantings, alleged racism and accusations of spousal abuse have all seen no official
bans in Australia. Indeed, in some cases, some performers’ careers, such as
Polanski and Allen, have benefited from the publicity and gained widespread support and
sympathy at the expense of their victims.
Comments