| Author |
Message |
|
| Nancy |
 Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 3:00 pm |
 |
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 4607
Location: Norman, OK
|
billyweeds wrote: Jerry Stiller tells me he's very annoyed that the NYTimes obit failed to mention the important fact that Bea Arthur was a WAVE during World War II. He's right when he says show-biz obits tend to omit a lot of info that doesn't relate directly to the deceased's show-biz career. He says Bea's military service is an intrinsic part of her life story and that the Times was off base to leave it out.
I did not know that. Thanks for posting it, billy. She certainly deserves to be recognized for it. |
_________________
"All in all, it's just another feather in the fan."
Isaacism, 2009 |
|
| Back to top |
  
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:18 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
billyweeds wrote: Jerry Stiller tells me he's very annoyed that the NYTimes obit failed to mention the important fact that Bea Arthur was a WAVE during World War II. He's right when he says show-biz obits tend to omit a lot of info that doesn't relate directly to the deceased's show-biz career. He says Bea's military service is an intrinsic part of her life story and that the Times was off base to leave it out.
I'm curious why he considers it intrinsic. Did he say anything more? |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| lissa |
| Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:48 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2148
Location: my computer
|
Joe, don't you think she should be defined for ALL she was, not simply an actor of stage and television? I looked up the WAVEs and found this, and it doesn't change how I felt about her as an actor but gives me more insight to her past experience.
But I don't think that any of us - most of whom have achieved more than one thing in our lives - would want to be defined by only one accomplishment. Bea Arthur was proud, I'm sure, of the service she gave to her country, and it shows strength and character (and strength OF character) that she volunteered this way.
I don't see how it isn't intrinsic to her biography; she was a multi-dimensional person and should receive recognition for all she did and all she was. |
_________________
Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarfs aren't happy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| mo_flixx |
| Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:57 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 12533
|
Joe Vitus wrote: billyweeds wrote: Jerry Stiller tells me he's very annoyed that the NYTimes obit failed to mention the important fact that Bea Arthur was a WAVE during World War II. He's right when he says show-biz obits tend to omit a lot of info that doesn't relate directly to the deceased's show-biz career. He says Bea's military service is an intrinsic part of her life story and that the Times was off base to leave it out.
I'm curious why he considers it intrinsic. Did he say anything more?
I'm curious about her wartime service, too. I Googled <Bea Arthur +WAVE> and <Bea Arthur +World War II>. Nothing indicating she was a WAVE came up. I did find out that she was a medical technologist before the war and according to the imdb.com , she was in the Marines. Is it wrong?
Now I would like to know more. Maybe Jerry Stiller should write a letter to the Times. And perhaps someone would send in a correction to the imdb.com if they are wrong.
The WAVE's (Navy) and Women Marines were 2 different branches of the service. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:28 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
| Either Jerry or the IMDB got it wrong, but Jerry's basic point remains the same whether it's the WAVEs or the Marines. Bea's life includes military service and that's probably an important part of what made her such a commanding presence on stage and screen. She took no prisoners as an actress, and--WAVE or Marine--she probably was a tough cookie in the service as well. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| mo_flixx |
| Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 1:20 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 12533
|
billyweeds wrote: Either Jerry or the IMDB got it wrong, but Jerry's basic point remains the same whether it's the WAVEs or the Marines. Bea's life includes military service and that's probably an important part of what made her such a commanding presence on stage and screen. She took no prisoners as an actress, and--WAVE or Marine--she probably was a tough cookie in the service as well.
Agree, but would STILL like to know more. Women's service records from WWII are not yet digitalized. I'd also like to know more about her work as a medical technologist. This fits with her onstage persona too. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:06 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
Well, watching interviews today on YouTube (and I suggest everyone look up the many amazing interviews for various actors/writers/producers collected on the Archive of American Television project), I found her absolutely silent on the subject, and guarded—seeming hostile, as I read her expression—when questioned. She did not want to talk about WWII. So it's not suprising most of the obits were unaware and had no information on it.
To answer your question, Lissa, no I don't think she needs to be remembered for all that she was. That's for her family and close friends and whatever biographer chooses to write about her (should one ever do so). She was an entertainer and what's relevant to her obit are the roles she played, and the fame she enjoyed.
There are actors and directors who went into WWII one way and came out another. James Stewart and George Stevens come to mind. One can't discuss their later work without discussing how the war changed them. But Arthur was not even a working actress yet when that occured, or if she was it was so very early in her career that no one has heard of her. So there's not before-and-after to explain. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| lissa |
| Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:00 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2148
Location: my computer
|
Quote: To answer your question, Lissa, no I don't think she needs to be remembered for all that she was. That's for her family and close friends and whatever biographer chooses to write about her (should one ever do so). She was an entertainer and what's relevant to her obit are the roles she played, and the fame she enjoyed.
Perhaps but she also had a LARGE following, and as a fan, I feel it's something she should definitely receive recognition for, instead of just among her private circle. It doesn't matter if she wasn't an actress when she did her service, it enhances who she was and dimensionalizes her. And that piece of knowledge gives her fans yet another reason to love the person she was, not just the actress. She's known for her acting. She can also be recognized for her service. It may, or may not have made her a better actress; but it made her a better person and it's the person we remember, not just the actress.
And anything else she did in her life. A biography in a newspaper SHOULD cover, however briefly, a person's life, not just their life in show biz. |
_________________
Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarfs aren't happy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:21 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
| Two viewpoints, well expressed. I happen to agree with Lissa, but Joe articulated his POV very well. This is what a discussion board is about, not just discussing films. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| lissa |
| Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:26 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2148
Location: my computer
|
(feels good, huh?)  |
_________________
Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarfs aren't happy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:09 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
Just to be clear on this, I love reading the info, I'm sorry she was not forthcoming about that period of her life, and yes it enlarges my view of her. I'm really saying two things: one, that I'm not surprised or bothered that the press focussed on what she was known and loved for, and two, I did get a sense from those interviews that she was intentionally guarding that period of her life, so it was right for the obits to be—inadvertantly or not—respecting her wishes on that subject.
I mean, none of us are asking for details relating to her first marriage. We know she never talked about it, didn't want to talk about it, and therefore we know it wasn't something she considered the public's business. The impression I get is that the WWII years were a similar matter. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| lissa |
| Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:36 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2148
Location: my computer
|
Could be - I got the feeling she valued her privacy too. But I'm wondering if she was just modest about that part of her life and didn't talk about it for that reason.
Thing is, despite her own reticence, it is her personal history and nothing to shield; if SOMEone knew it, then obviously it wasn't that private as to be hidden.
billy, how does Jerry know about that service she did? |
_________________
Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarfs aren't happy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:07 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
| Jerry and his wife Anne Meara were friends of Bea's. Bea, in fact, appeared in Anne's theatrical comedy Afterplay. (As did Rue McLanahan at a different time.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:28 pm |
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
Quote: This is what a discussion board is about, not just discussing films.
billy,
Thank you so much for that penetrating insight. I'll be in the television forum discussing my latest masturbation fantasies. Hope to see you there. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Befade |
| Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:29 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 3784
Location: AZ
|
| To change the subject and let bocce know.......I AM interested in a DePalma forum.........and I am NOT interested in a horror forum unless it's old horror movies. |
_________________
Lost in my own private I dunno. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
