Category: articles

articles laurence olivier vivien leigh

Laurence Olivier: Young Man with a Future

31 days of Vivien Leigh and Laurence OlivierI have a bunch of magazine and newspaper articles left over from my dissertation research, so I’ve decided to do “31 Days of the Oliviers.” Each day I will post a new article or blog post, ending with Vivien Leigh’s birthday on November 5. These articles (most of which have Vivien as the main subject) span the years 1937-1967 and come from both American and British sources. I hope you enjoy reading them as much as I do!

{Day 6} Laurence Olivier’s return to Hollywood after a six year absence was greeted with enthusiasm by the American press. In their eyes, he was already an established, top actor, and was written about with respect. In this article from Stage magazine, author Katharine Best waxes poetic about Larry’s long road to fame, Wuthering Heights and No Time for Comedy.

Laurence Olivier: Young Man with a Future

by Katharine Best
Stage, March 15, 1939
Submitted to vivandlarry.com by Chris

articles the oliviers

Heart Throbs In The Headlines

31 days of Vivien Leigh and Laurence OlivierI have a bunch of magazine and newspaper articles left over from my dissertation research, so I’ve decided to do “31 Days of the Oliviers.” Each day I will post a new article or blog post, ending with Vivien Leigh’s birthday on November 5. These articles (most of which have Vivien as the main subject) span the years 1937-1967 and come from both American and British sources. I hope you enjoy reading them as much as I do!

{Day 5} Vivien Leigh’s and Laurence Olivier’s romance was speculated in the press from the outset, but because of Selznick’s iron grip on his new discovery, news of just how involved they were did not reach the public until after Gone with the Wind premiered.

This short article in Motion Picture is surprisingly accurate for the most part (aside from Larry being called “Laurie”, but perhaps this was the Hollywood press not understanding a British accent?). 1930s Hollywood did not look kindly on adultery, but here it was, very thinly veiled, being reported on as wildly romantic. Many celebrities back then and even today would not have gotten such a free pass in the media.

[Discussion Question]: Why do you think the press and public were so enamored with Larry and Vivien despite knowing they left spouses and children to be together?

****

Heart Throbs in the Headlines

The exciting romance of Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh blazes brilliantly on the Hollywood Horizon.
Modern Screen, February 1940

There are three important steps in every love affair. I see you, I know you, and I want you. Laurence Olivier took them all at a leap–and landed in the arms of Vivien Leigh.

Laurence first met Vivien in the summer of 1936 during the production of a British film in which they both appeared. The instant his brooding brown eyes lit on her fiery green ones, he was smitten by that powerful something which stops men cold. Now, love is alright in its place but its place, he knew, was not in the heart of a man who is the supposedly devoted husband of another woman. Laurence had been married to Jill Esmond for six years and she had borne him a son. He didn’t want to hurt her. Neither did he care to upset Leigh Holman, his beloved’s spouse and father of her little daughter, Suzanne.

But Vivien’s fascination was greater than Lauries good intentions. He found he couldn’t live without her. And he wasn’t a bit angry when he found she couldn’t live without him. Before long, they left their mates and their children for each other. There was no alternative.

Vivien and Laurence are a likable, honest pair. They have never attempted to conceal their romance. Perhaps their mutual “well-do-as-we-please-and-drat-public-opinion” attitude has played a huge part in holding them together. For example, it is no secret that Vivien left London and followed Laurie to Hollywood because she couldn’t endure the separation caused by his work in Wuthering Heights. Nor is there any mystery about her “chance” meeting with Agent Myron Selznick, and her eventual “Scarlett” assignment. Laurie arranged that. He pulled every string he could find to keep her by his side and, when the omnipotent David O. awarded her the most discussed role since Bernhardt played Camille, it was his off-the-set encouragement which led her to a magnificent performance.

Some months ago, Jill Esmond Olivier filed suit for divorce, and more recently Leigh Holman took similar steps. Before the year is out Vivien and her inamorato will be free to head for the altar–and it’s a cinch they’ll waste not time getting there.

articles gone with the wind the oliviers vivien leigh

The Woman Behind Scarlett

31 days of Vivien Leigh and Laurence OlivierI have a bunch of magazine and newspaper articles left over from my dissertation research, so I’ve decided to do “31 Days of the Oliviers.” Each day I will post a new article or blog post, ending with Vivien Leigh’s birthday on November 5. These articles (most of which have Vivien as the main subject) span the years 1937-1967 and come from both American and British sources. I hope you enjoy reading them as much as I do!

{Day 4} When Vivien Leigh landed the role of Scarlett O’Hara in Gone with the Wind after a much-publicized search, she officially became studio property. As such, she was kept under close watch by Selznick. Details of her private life, particularly her relationship with Laurence Olivier, were kept under wraps as the publicity department generated stories–some true, some embellished–to build her new star persona. Journalists for various fan magazines were not granted one on one interviews with Vivien until after GWTW had finished filming.

This article, from Motion Picture magazine, shows how both star and studio collaborated to paint Vivien as woman as unconventional as the character she had just finished playing.

****

The Woman Behind Scarlett

by Roger Carroll
Motion Picture, February 1940
Just seven days before, on Friday the 13th of january, David O. Selznick had announced that Vivien Leigh–an English actress virtually unknown to America–would play Scarlett O’Hara. Ever since, Hollywood reporters had been clamoring to see for themselves whether or not she fitted Scarlett’s description. Now, at last, they were getting their wish.

Continue reading

articles the oliviers vivien leigh

“I’m Never Satisfied” says Vivien Leigh

31 days of Vivien Leigh and Laurence OlivierI have a bunch of magazine and newspaper articles left over from my dissertation research, so I’ve decided to do “31 Days of the Oliviers.” Each day I will post a new article or blog post, ending with Vivien Leigh’s birthday on November 5. These articles (most of which have Vivien as the main subject) span the years 1937-1967 and come from both American and British sources. I hope you enjoy reading them as much as I do!

****

{Day 2} In 1937, Picturegoer and Film Weekly declared Vivien Leigh the most “important recruit British films have ever had,” and insisted that it was the job of the British film studios to develop her on her home turf so as not to lose her to their Hollywood rivals. As I argued in my dissertation, although the “industry” may have wanted to make her a star in Britain, neither she nor Alexander Korda put much effort into making that happen. Her desire to differentiate herself as an “actress” versus simply being a “film star,” along with her being cast in “non-British” roles prevented her from ever reaching the height of stardom during the 1930s. She resisted conforming to the middlebrow values that made people like Gracie Fields, Jessie Matthews and George Formby so popular.

I’m Never Satisfied” says Vivien Leigh

by John K. Newham
Film Weekly, December 10, 1938

It has taken Vivien Leigh nearly four years to reconcile herself to a screen career.

At one time she didn’t attempt to conceal the fact that she wasn’t in the least satisfied with herself as a film actress or with her pictures. Today, after A Yank at Oxford and St. Martin’s Lane, and with The Thief of Bagdad in the offing, she is very much happier about herself and the screen. It was with a sigh of relief that I heard her say this.

Almost a couple of years ago, when writing about her in Film Weekly, I said: “She is, I should say, the most important recruit British films have ever had. If only she can be kept from taking herself too seriously. Her career is at a critical stage.”

But I was scared stiff at the time that, owing to her passionate interest in the stage and dissatisfaction with herself on the screen, we should be losing her.

Increased Popularity
Fortunately, my fears haven’t been realized. She had progressed a lot, because of the quality of parts, not quantity. Her popularity has increased enormously.

Although she was “the other woman” in A Yank at Oxford, the role did her a tremendous lot of good. Her ambitious, Cockney dancer in St. Martin’s Lane has received even more enthusiastic notices. I believe Alexander Korda considers her to be this country’s biggest potential star. Unless I am mistaken, he will be paying a lot of attention to her in the future. She is still keenly interested in the stage and, in fact, is appearing in “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” at the Old Vic.

“But,” she admitted, “I have liked films very much more recently, although I’m never satisfied with myself when I see my pictures.”

Unsympathetic Parts
She smiled. “Probably I shall never be! but I do feel that I am getting some better opportunities. Quite a number of people were surprised when I appeared as a vamp in A Yank at Oxford and took an unsympathetic part in St. Martin’s Lane. But in both cases I felt that the roles were interesting and out of the rut. Since the films have been shown, the letters I have received have proved that I was right. Most of the letters say how glad the writers are that I have not confined myself entirely to pretty heroine characters.”

I commented on the fact that, for a girl often described as one of our most glamorous actresses, she didn’t seem to bother in the least about looking unglamorous–as, for instance, in her crying scene toward the end of A Yank at Oxford.

The Cockney Accent
“What of it?” she wanted to know. “The very thing I am trying to avoid is being typed as a glamour girl. Quite honestly, I don’t mind what type of role I have, so long as it is interesting. I’ve no particular preference. And I am taking advantage of the increasing confidence in the theory that acting does tell in the long run.” She was lucky to have got her role in St. martin’s Lane. The original intention was to have an unknown girl for the part:

After dozens of tests, Laughton and Pommer gave up the idea as hopeless. They couldn’t find anyone suitable. Then Laughton remembered Vivien Leigh. A few years ago she was to have appeared in Cyrano which, after a lot of preliminary work, was dropped. Before the plan failed, he and Vivien rehearsed a lot of the scenes (in French, incidentally, for the English translation was not available at the time).

The only criticism Vivien has received about her work in St. Martin’s Lane is that her cockney accent is not quite perfect.

She defended herself on this point when I brought it up:

“You see,” she explained, “I was told to ‘tone it down.’ After I had spent a long time learning how to speak Cockney, I was told that most audiences won’t be able to understand the accent, so it was necessary to use a certain amount of compromise.

“We redubbed the whole of the film for America, by the way, and in the American version we used straight-forward voices, without an accent at all.”

Change of Plans
Talking of America, I asked her if she could clear up one or two current mysteries. It was announced not too long ago that, following a big demand for her to be featured again with Conrad Veidt, with whom she had appeared in Dark Journey, she would co-star with him in Spy in Black. But Spy in Black has gone into production with valerie Hobson in the role instead.

It was also announced that she was going to America for a play; but she hasn’t gone, and is now tied to this country with her Old Vic engagement and the forthcoming Thief of Bagdad.

Play Postponed
“One thing is responsible for the other,” she explained. “It was all fixed up for ,e to play in Spy in Black, and then came this opportunity to appear in New York. I liked the idea so much that I asked Mr. Korda to release me from the film. He agreed. No sooner had Spy in Black gone into production than I received a cable from America saying the play had been postponed indefinitely. I had even booked my passage. So all my plans were hopelessly messed up.”

I remembered that several American companies had tried to sign her up.

“What about Hollywood?” I asked. “Are you likely to go there?”

She shook her head.

Hollywood Offers
“I don’t think so. The trouble is that Hollywood seems to be interested in me only as a long-term contract actress. And I have no intention of tying myself for several years to any one company, particularly in Hollywood, where it would be difficult to take stage engagements between films. I am not going to neglect the stage, whatever happens. Besides, how can I sign a long-term contract? My contract with Alexander Korda is for two films a year, and it still has more than a year to run.

“I should like to go to Hollywood to make one film–and then, perhaps, to go there later on for other pictures at different times.”

So that’s one risk obviated–we are not likely to lose this English Star to America! And when Vivien Leigh makes up her mind about a thing, she is as obstinate as Robert Donat.

Reverting to Conrad Veidt for a moment, I’m afraid those filmgoers who asked him to be co-starred with Vivien Leigh again are going to be disappointed when they see The Thief of Bagdad. For, although Veidt is going to be in the picture, he and Vivien will not be opposite each other.

She Has It Both Ways
I still think Vivien Leigh is the most promising young screen actress we have in this country. Her progress has been slow but thoroughly satisfactory. On looks and personality alone, she could undoubtedly succeed. But, curiously enough, these are two things on which she doesn’t want to rely. She had always wanted to become a good actress, and that’s not just a “line”, I know it to be a fact. Acting does mean everything to her.

So, she has it both ways–an appeal for those who are interested solely in seeing a pretty girl on the screen, and those with more discernment who appreciate acting more than looks. But I think that most of the latter appreciate a girl even more when she has both qualities!

articles laurence olivier the oliviers

An Open Letter to Laurence Olivier

31 days of Vivien Leigh and Laurence OlivierI have a bunch of magazine and newspaper articles left over from my dissertation research, so I’ve decided to do “31 Days of the Oliviers.” Each day I will post a new article or blog post, ending with Vivien Leigh’s birthday on November 5. These articles (most of which have Vivien as the main subject) span the years 1937-1967 and come from both American and British sources. I hope you enjoy reading them as much as I do!

****

Laurence Olivier’s snobishness toward filmmaking, particularly in the early years of his career, has been well documented. He always regarded theatre as the true actor’s medium but was not singular in his opinion. This was an attitude shared by many British thespians of his generation, including Ralph Richardson, John Gielgud, Michael Redgrave and even Vivien Leigh. Movies were made to boost the bank account and gain wider recognition, but not for developing one’s craft. Therefore it comes as no surprise that Britian’s most popular film fan magazine would attempt to take him, and others of his kind by association, down a peg or two. This is exactly what Picturegoer did in 1937.

An Open Letter to Laurence Olivier

by The Editor
Picturegoer, 1937

Dear Laurence Olivier,

May we be permitted perform the pleasant task of paying a tribute to your performance in Fire Over England before proceeding to the real business on the agenda which may not be so pleasant?

Your success in the new British film, as a matter of fact, lends special point to the issue which we wish to raise here.

Frankly, it is disturbing to find a young actor whom we have some reason to regard as one of the White Hopes of the British screen, going into the old stage artist routine of being superior about “the films”.

“Given a suitable story,” we read in a recent interview, “and no need to sacrifice the stage work he prefers, Laurence Olivier will consent to act in one or two films a year.” The life of a film star, you add does not appeal to you because you wish to develop as an actor, and successes on the screen, except in rare cases like Laughton’s, means doing the same thing over and over again.

“In the theatre,” you point out, “an actor obeys the producer, but he is left alone on the stage.”

Whatever merits this theory may possess, originality is not one of them. It has for years been both the formula of the film failures and the heartcry of every stage actor who has ever considered his art something too delicate to be entrusted to the mechanical medium and too rare to be offered to movie audiences.

One is inclined to be doubtful of its validity now, but if we concede that there may be some justice in some of your complaints, we are still left wondering what a professionally ambitious artiste who can see no chance of development in films is doing in films at all.

We appreciate that your previous experience in pictures has not been an entirely happy one. In Hollywood you had the misfortune to be labelled as “the man who looks like Ronald Colman,” and none of your earlier British films could be called masterpieces.

We recall, incidentally, at Ealing during the production of Perfect Understanding:

The occasion has remained in our memory because our choice of day for a visit was not a particularly felicitous one. Gloria Swanson, who was already beginning to see the danger signals of failure facing her first British production, had just received a cable from America announcing the secure of a valuable collection of furniture over a debt dispute. Michael Farmer (then Mr. Gloria Swanson) was noticeably in the somewhat irritating throes of development into a film star, and Laurence Olivier was at the moment of our arrival the centre of one of those minor storms that blow up even in the best regulated studios.

The point at issue was not, as might be imagined from some of your later pronouncements on the kinema, a delicate question of artistic conscience, but, if we remember rightly, a pair of pants–a pair of short pants–for a Riviera scene, which, we gathered, failed to show off the stalwart Olivier frame adequately.

Perhaps we should be grateful that wardrobe men are also included in your recent enumeration of film hazards for stage actors who take themselves seriously.

Now we do not, for a moment, question the sincerity of your own attitude toward the films, and in any case, you are to be congratulated for speaking your mind so honestly.

Wha we do object to is that the British studios are already full of “spare time” stars. They like the big film money, of course, but they are always in a hurry to get the job over with and collect their pay envelope so that they can dash back to the West End.

And if, owing to the fact that they have given all their energy to their stage performance the night before, their work is not up to form–well, after all, it is only the movies, what does it matter?

One of the reasons why, although money has been poured into the studios, the late lamented bid to capture the world market for British films has failed, is that neither courage nor enthusiasm has been mixed with it.

Hollywood’s enthusiasm is tremendous, even to the point of obsession, but it makes for good films, and in the long run good films make your Laughtons.

The up and  coming young artistes one meets there are ambitious to make good in films. They have faith in films as a career, not merely as a stepping stone to personal to personal pyrotechnics, to the applause of hand-picked audiences of sycophants in the repertory theatres and an opportunity for picking up a little easy money.

While we respect your attitude we do not believe you are past praying for. We hope that Fire Over England may enable you to change it.

If, however the worst comes to worst, we can only wish you luck in your choice of “suitable stories” for the vehicles of your future rare appearances on the screen.

You may need it. That artistes are notoriously poor judges of dramatic material should at any rate be known to an actor who once selected the lead in Beau Geste in preference to the lead in Journey’s End.